Climate Hustle

by Judith Curry

Are they trying to control the climate . . . or you?

Marc Morano has a new movie, Climate Hustle.

CLIMATE HUSTLE, hosted by award-winning investigative journalist Marc Morano, reveals the history of climate scares including global cooling; debunks outrageous claims about temperatures, extreme weather, and the so-called “consensus;” exposes the increasingly shrill calls to “act immediately before it’s too late,” and in perhaps the film’s most important section, profiles key scientists who used to believe in climate alarm but have since converted to skepticism.

The movie had a red carpet premiere last December in Paris, and was shown last week in a Congressional briefing.

The film will be aired in 500 theaters in the U.S. (and one in Canada) on May 2 in a one night theater event.  Locations and showtimes can be found [here].

Video clips including trailers, interviews with Morano, and other clips are found on the Climate Hustle web page [link].  A list of scientists interviewed in film is found [here].

An interesting interview with Marc Morano about the film is found [here].

Below are a selection of reviews to give you a flavor for the movie and the controversy that it is generating.

Randy Olson’s review

Randy Olson‘s review was published on DotEarth: The Climate Hustler: Review of Marc Morano’s “Climate Hustle”.  Excerpts:

I end up with split feelings about Morano. My heart is with him as a fellow communicator and now filmmaker. I appreciate that he is dedicated to making the world a less boring place, which is more than I can say for a lot of environmentalists. But … I’m afraid my brain is still programmed as a scientist and so really can’t buy into most of the bunk that clogs the climate skeptic world. I also think he’s a danger to the efforts of the climate movement and did my best to warn about this in 2010 with a series of blog posts recommending nobody debate him.

I would say to everyone in the climate community who might be terrified of it sweeping the nation’s box office, “It ain’t gonna happen” — any more than the kid down the block shooting hoops in the driveway is going to play in the NBA next year. Not impossible, but ain’t gonna happen. It has the light-hearted and entertaining feel of a Michael Moore film, but is not in the same league.

On the visual side, it is so, so hard to achieve high quality visual elements on a limited budget, which clearly he had (contrary to all the myths of the enviros that he is wealthy from the oil companies — he’s not — I know from nine years of talking to him). And so the interviews are poorly lit, the acted scenes are fun but amateurish, and even the pacing of some graphics are slow.

Overall the editing is decent so the movie does move along — it’s not torture. But it’s also not amazing. The funniest bit, I thought, was clips of Prince Charles over the years saying we’ve only got ten years to act, then five years, then three, then he’s flustered.

While many environmentalists think Marc Morano is the devil and should be tried for crimes against humanity, I think that’s too silly a stretch. We live in a democracy with free speech. There is a need for opposition voices and questioning. If anyone feels threatened by this movie it would have to mean you’re conceding that the communication skills of the environmental side are really bad — which actually they are, so maybe there should be some cause for concern.

Spectator review

The Spectator has a review by Marita Noon:  ‘Climate Hustle’ May 2:  Don’t miss it.  Excerpts:

Using a touch of humor and a three-card monte theme, Morano likens the crisis marketing to a sleight of hand: a Climate Hustle. He says: “when the people pushing you to get into the game, the ones predicting a calamitous future due to global warming, don’t show their cards, it is a hustle.” The film shows the cards so the viewers can decide if “they are playing it straight or if you are being hustled.”

Climate Hustle features a history of climate alarmism. Morano asks: “How has the alleged climate consensus changed over time?” While many of us may recall seeing some of the “wild claims,” Climate Hustle puts them all together — and seeing them back-to-back should cause all thinking people to question what we are being told today. 

Yet, as the film demonstrates, scientists don’t want to talk about their failed predictions.

Meanwhile, scientists who don’t agree with the “leaders” are accused, by the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of “treason.” He wants them “in jail.”

Yes, as Climate Hustle makes clear, there are dissenting scientists — but they are marginalized, even called “kooks.” If they speak out, they are insulted, ignored, ridiculed, ostracized, called heretics, hurt professionally, and even terminated for divergent views. This is not the scientific method.

Despite being treated like 17th century “witches,” many scientists are reexamining the evidence and reversing their positions — even calling their previous views: “quite a big mistake.”

Jumping back and forth from dramatic claims to scientific fact, Climate Hustle helps thinking people see past the fear mongering of the current climate change narrative and examine the global warming evidence for themselves.

Another favorable review, in The American, was written following the Paris premiere, this is also worth reading [link].

Negative reviews

There isn’t much in the way of negative reviews as of yet; as far as I can tell the only person that I would expect to write a negative review that has actually seen the movie is Chris Mooney.

Chris Mooney has a WaPo article that mentions Climate Hustle, but rather focuses on the dust-ups between Bill Nye and Sarah Palin and Marc Morano.  Mooney has this to say about the actual movie:

. . . a new documentary, “Climate Hustle,” featuring Marc Morano, publisher of the skeptical website ClimateDepot.com, who takes viewers on a tour through the arguments that some holdout scientists do still make to undermine mainstream climate concerns.

DeSmog did a negative review at the time of the Paris screening, without having seen the film:

Climate Hustle is designed to confuse people, create doubt and further delay climate action — much as Marc Morano has been paid to do for decades. Don’t be conned by the Climate Hustler. If you’re looking for an entertaining film about climate science denial, check out Merchants of Doubt instead, which happens to feature Marc Morano.

Further negative comments from people that haven’t seen the movie are reported in an article posted at mrc.tv:

Bill Nye warned the film’s producer, Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano, that “Climate Hustle’s” content endangers not just the nation, but also the world:

“I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.”

U.N. Climate Scientist Michael Oppenheimer has, likewise, condemned the film – without even viewing it – for daring to dispute climate alarmism. “Marc is a propagandist,” the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientist cautions viewers.

JC reflections

Let me start by discussing my take on Marc Morano, and why I agreed to be interviewed for his movie.  I first heard of Marc Morano circa 2006, from Joe Romm.  Romm’s take on Morano was basically that of the climate ‘anti-Christ.’  I then put ClimateDepot on my list of blogs to monitor, to check up on what the ‘evil’ side in the climate debate was up to.  I slowly built up an understanding of what Morano was doing, and I didn’t regard all of it as negative.

At some point (probably around the time of Climategate) I found myself on the same email list as Marc Morano, and we exchanged a few emails on issues of common interest.  Circa 2010 (if my memory serves) I referred to Marc Morano as a ‘demagogue’ (I can’t find this anywhere on the internet).  Marc was offended, we discussed this on email, and I raised my concern about his attacks on individual climate scientists that included publishing their email addresses, etc.  We declared sort of a truce on this, and we agreed to point out to each other if we spotted inappropriate behaviors.

Subsequently, I’ve met Marc several times, and I have to say I like the guy.  He’s smart and he’s funny (he pokes fun at both sides), and as far as I can tell he is honest.  When he asked to interview me for the movie, I agreed to do it.  The interview itself was really fun.  I have no complaints about how I was portrayed in the movie.

I saw an earlier version of the film in November, prior to the Paris premiere.  I wasn’t quite sure what to expect, but my initial reaction was relief that there were no goofy or incredible statements about the science.  I found the movie to be pretty entertaining and even interesting, especially the narratives developed around silly alarmist statements made by scientists and politicians.

I thought the selection of featured scientists was quite good.  It included some new faces that were quite effective – Caleb Rossiter, Robert Giegengack, Richard Tol, Daniel Botkin were especially good.

The budget for this was shoestring, I think it was less than $500K (somewhere I recall seeing a $20M budget for Merchants of Doubt movie, this may not be correct).   Financials for Merchants of Doubt movie: $192K at the box office, with an additional $114K from home video sales (JC note: Merchants of Doubt movie was discussed in this previous post).  It will be interesting to see how Climate Hustle does at the box office (and in subsequent home video sales).

I’m sure people will criticize me for participating in this, but then these are the people that have pretty much already sent me to Coventry, so . . . so what.

The key issue surrounding the movie are reflected in these quotes from Randy Olson and Bill Nye:

“I also think [Morano]’s a danger to the efforts of the climate movement”

“I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.”

Chip Knappenberger tweetrd re Nye’s  ‘national interest’ statement: “Sounds like Nye should work for the State Department.”

Well, I will make no attempt to arbitrate what is in the national interest, but a reminder of minority rights in a constitutional democracy seems in order:

Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, expressed this concept of democracy in 1801 in his First Inaugural Address. He said,

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

In every genuine democracy today, majority rule is both endorsed and limited by the supreme law of the constitution, which protects the rights of individuals. Tyranny by minority over the majority is barred, but so is tyranny of the majority against minorities.

The perspective in Climate Hustle is arguably a minority perspective, at least in terms of world governments and a select group of scientists.  Randy Olson comments on this:

There is a need for opposition voices and questioning. If anyone feels threatened by this movie it would have to mean you’re conceding that the communication skills of the environmental side are really bad — which actually they are, so maybe there should be some cause for concern.

So, I hope some of you will be able to see the movie on May 2, I look forward to your reactions.

While we are on the topic of entertaining film clips, check out this youtube video Old people don’t care about climate change.

Marc Morano posing with his ‘Climate Criminal’ wanted poster in the streets of Paris

 

 

268 responses to “Climate Hustle

  1. Pingback: Climate Hustle – Enjeux énergies et environnement

    • David Springer

      I dedicate this to MAX1OK

      • David Springer

        Warning: May be disturbing in full screen hi-def.

      • From the article:

        Why should young people care about climate change enough to vote? Because polls show that senior citizens, some of the nation’s most active voters, aren’t prioritizing one of our most pressing issues.

        “I don’t care,” 89-year-old American actress Cloris Leachman jokes in a new Earth Day video. “I’ll be dead by then.”

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/old-people-dont-care-about-climate-change_us_571a910ce4b0d4d3f7236a07

        I’ve seen the right (e.g., Peter G. Peterson Foundation), in its drive to do away with Social Security and Medicare, try to drive a wedge between the young and the old.

        It never got much traction.

        Poll after poll shows that Americans are more politically polarized than in any time in recent history, but not when it comes to Social Security. Even among those who identify themselves as “consistently conservative,” 59% now oppose any benefit cuts, and as many (12%) favor increasing benefits as phasing it out as a government program, the Pew Research Center reported recently. It’s hard to believe that just a decade ago, a newly reelected President George W. Bush declared he intended to spend some of his “political capital” by pushing for the partial privatization of Social Security.

        Just as remarkable, support for Social Security spans not only across the political spectrum, but the generations. While half of younger folks say they believe they’ll never get any Social Security benefits, 61% of Millennials and 67% of GenXers oppose any cuts.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2014/10/24/across-age-income-and-party-americans-back-social-security-even-if-it-means-tax-hikes/#327860715a5f

        Now the climatariat is up to the same old tricks.

      • Cute.

        That vid is supposed to motivate people to action but to any thinking viewer, it would have the opposite effect – climate change has not been a problem, contrary to all the warnings of doom by now. And there are real problems to pay attention to. Only appeals to emotion about unverified future doom, which pales in comparison to real, verified problems of other kinds.

      • Steven Mosher

        “That vid is supposed to motivate people to action but to any thinking viewer, it would have the opposite effect – climate change has not been a problem, contrary to all the warnings of doom by now. ”

        The mistake they made was when the old people explained that they have “Today problems” and then presented a series of minor annoyances.

        For the “not old” the reaction can be

        “Ya, I have today problems too.. Like today I cant afford my heating
        bill, today I cant afford my rent, or ya, today I am still unemployed”

        Then too is the problem of using old celebs.. If you are old enough to remember them, your smart enough to ignore what they say.
        And if you dont remember them then who cares.

        A smart producer would grab a bunch of working class familes and ask them?
        ‘which is more important, paying your rent or preventing a sea level rise of 1 meter in 2100?”
        Do politcians who talk about problems 100 years from now, understand your day to day struggles?”

        etc..

      • Steve concludes–
        “A smart producer would grab a bunch of working class familes and ask them? ‘which is more important, paying your rent or preventing a sea level rise of 1 meter in 2100?”

        Wouldn’t it be wiser to show that there is no reliable evidence to tie sea level rise and human CO2 emissions. What exists is speculation about what might happen and how bad it would be if those fears came to pass.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Wouldn’t it be wiser to show that there is no reliable evidence to tie sea level rise and human CO2 emissions. What exists is speculation about what might happen and how bad it would be if those fears came to pass.”

        You can’t show the non existence.
        Further, its better to counter an emotional appeal with a stronger emotion.

        Their spot basically asks you to maintain a negative feeling towards old people. Countering that with sympathy toward the working stiff is easy.

      • @Steven Mosher | May 1, 2016 at 9:20 pm | – Quote:
        “Wouldn’t it be wiser to show that there is no reliable evidence to tie sea level rise and human CO2 emissions. What exists is speculation about what might happen and how bad it would be if those fears came to pass.”

        You can’t show the non existence.”

        Yes I can. These people had no coal fired energy, no SUVs, no carbon (sic) tax, yet the sea levels still rose …

        2000-year-old temple found underwater off Indian coast

        “When the shoreline receded during the 2004 tsunami, tourists in Mamallapuram swore they saw a long row of granite boulders emerge from the sea, before it was swallowed again as the water hurtled forward.

        More than a decade later, a team of scientists and divers have uncovered what eyewitnesses saw on that fateful day – vestiges of an ancient port.

        A 10-member team from the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) surveyed the area from March 10 to 18, and have found the ruins of one of six ancient temples that are thought to have been swallowed up by the ocean as sea levels rose.”

        http://www.digitaljournal.com/life/travel/2000-year-old-temple-found-underwater-off-indian-coast/article/461795?

        Obama’s Following Through With Promise to Bankrupt Energy Companies
        http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/15/obamas-following-through-with-promise-to-bankrupt-energy-companies/

      • Steven Mosher

        Sorry mark.
        You showed you dont know what you are talking about.
        Tell fairy tales about locations doesn’t show the non existence of other evidence.
        Like I said you can’t show there is no evidence.
        You can show contrary evidence.
        But you can’t show a negative existential.
        Show the non existence of unicorns.

        Like I said. Better approach is to counter an emotion with an emotion.

      • Check out the swim suit edition on the same topic. It is really worth waiting until the end.

      • “Sorry mark.
        You showed you dont know what you are talking about.”

        Again, they had no coal fired power emissions, but sea levels rose.

        That is a fact.

        What is your best evidence that shutting down coal fired power stations stops sea level rise?

        Show mw you know what your talking about.

      • Steven Mosher

        Mark.”Again, they had no coal fired power emissions, but sea levels rose.

        That is a fact.”

        It’s also beside the point.
        Sea levels rise when the water warms.
        And when landed ice melts
        And when land sinks.

        Illustrating that CO2 may not have been a cause in case A says nothing about the future.

      • @ Steven Mosher: “A smart producer would grab a bunch of working class familes and ask them?
        ‘which is more important, paying your rent or preventing a sea level rise of 1 meter in 2100?”
        Do politcians who talk about problems 100 years from now, understand your day to day struggles?””

        Bullseye.

    • In considering a film’s veracity, the question of motivation is important- peopaganda films like Merchants of Doubt and Climate Hustle are produced because writers, producers and PR flacks on both coasts and sides of K Street have careers to advance and mortgages to pay.

      Anyone care to bet that the average paid audience ( no hustling free tickets allowed ) in the 400 theaters hired to show Climate Hustle tonight will be as large as the number of people apearing on screen ?

  2. I would really like to see this movie. I would even pay for it but it is not available anywhere in Canada except one theatre in Ontario. Oh well I guess I’ll have to wait until it comes out on Netflix.

  3. David Springer

    Climate Kooks Etc

    Catchy blog name!

  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

    He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh from 1992 to 1996.[4] After 1996, he began working for Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish the accusations from Swift-Boat veterans that John Kerry had allegedly exaggerated his military service record.[3]

    Beginning in June 2006, Morano served as the director of communications for Senator Jim Inhofe. He was also communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the George W. Bush administration. In 2007, Morano produced a report listing hundreds of scientists whose work, according to Morano, questions whether global warming is caused by human activity.[3][5]

    In April 2009, despite having no formal education in the field of climate science, Morano founded and became executive editor of ClimateDepot.com, a website sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

    From his bio it sounds like Morano is more of a politico or public relations advisor than someone who should be taken seriously on the science. I would also be embarrassed to have worked for someone who calls global warming a “hoax.”

    • In five years it might have made you feel warm inside while you watch the snow fall.

    • mikelorrey

      As opposed to failed cartoonists with no formal education in climate, who parade claims of 97% consensus based on fraudulent math, or computer geeks, also with no climate science training, who make climate models that treat the earth as flat, and can’t simulate clouds?

    • David Wojick

      The climate scare is worse than a hoax. It is a belief!

    • Another reason to be skeptical is that Morano is employed by and the movie is produced by CFACT a think tank with a conservative agenda. Which is to oppose any policies that reduce CO2 emissions.

      • why is that logic only applied to conservative entities and never to the other side?

        By your standard we should be skeptical of everything produced by government and NGO funded entities because they have a “conservativeprogressive agenda” and “opposesupport any policies that reduce CO2 emissions.”

      • Science is different from policy, wij.

      • Joseph said:

        Science is different from policy…

        Your naivety is touching.

      • @Joseph, this is a joke, right? You’re hoping people will assume you’re a left-winger and that you believe man-made global warning is a disaster, so that when they read your comment that someone who is employed by a conservative think tank should be ignored, they’ll shake their heads and say how bigoted the left-wingers are. Correct? Tell me it’s a joke.

      • When the opposition provide evidence for their position it is thoughtcrime. When your side lie and commit fraud for their position it is virtue.
        The same as with any other intolerant religion.

    • Well if you can’t attack the message, then the next best thing is to attack the messenger.

      • When did pointing out his background become an attack. And if you believe that think tanks are even handed an impartial I have a bridge to sell you

      • Joseph said:

        From his bio it sounds like Morano is more of a politico or public relations advisor than someone who should be taken seriously on the science.

      • What does it sound like he is to you, Glenn?

      • Joseph,

        Do you think I don’t know exactly what your rhetorical strategy is?

        If you can paint Morano with the face of evil, then you don’t ever have to respond to his actual arguments.

        It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book.

    • Kinda like Al Gore you mean?

    • Says the side that allows policy makers to re-write science.

    • “From his bio it sounds like Morano is more of a politico or public relations advisor than someone who should be taken seriously on the science. I would also be embarrassed to have worked for someone who calls global warming a “hoax.””

      Or why take President Obama, a politico, seriously on the science? Why take John Kerry seriously on the science? Why take Gina McCarthy, a life long bureaucrat, seriously on the science?

    • Joseph, it’s important to note that many of us aren’t necessarily questioning the fact that CO2 has absorption bands and helps too keep us warm and cozy. In my case the questioning arises from the degree of alarmism, the use of fraudulent emissions protections, over reliance on poorly diagnosed gridded models, technically and economically irrational solution sets, amateurish risk analysis, repressive dogmatism, and a linkage of CO2 emissions controls to advocacy of communism and (as in the Figueres statement) dictatorship.

      If I were to make a video about this issue I would be a bit nerdier and start out by describing the way models are designed, calibrated, spun up, diagnosed, and pushed forward 200 years with poorly supported “business as usual” emissions projections I know are sheer baloney.

    • From his bio it sounds like Morano is more of a politico or public relations advisor than someone who should be taken seriously on the science.

      I suppose your next relevant criticism is that it is more of a “Swing” or “Tango” than a “Hustle”.

  5. We have nearly a half-century of over-the-top Malthusian statements about energy and climate from the ‘mainstream’ (aka writers in Science magazine). Morano et al., are pretty tame and correct, future historians may well find.

  6. One of the things about messaging, and this movie is certainly messaging, know who your target audience is and then give the message to them in spades.

    There are a number of ways to enhance messaging: to use comedy or contrast, or, most effectively, both in the same document. If you give calamity also give hope. If you give truth then give false as well. If you give buffoons also provide straight shooters. Dry humor and slapstick can co-exist, the skill is in the placement and timing.

    So, to evaluate this film for myself, I will try to discern who the target audience is. Is it aimed at me? Does the movie keep me engaged as the narrative unfolds. And, finally, for me at least, does the movie linger in my mind at the end, when I walk out of the theater/viewing, does one part or another have my mind going even if its: yes, but…

  7. From the article:

    Berkshire Hathaway shareholders have overwhelmingly rejected a resolution calling for the company to write a report about the risks climate change creates for its insurance companies.

    CEO Warren Buffett says he agrees that dealing with climate change is important for society, but he doesn’t think climate change creates serious risks for Berkshire’s insurance businesses.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BERKSHIRE_HATHAWAY_SHAREHOLDERS_THE_LATEST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-30-20-36-16

    • If it doesn’t create serious risk for insurers, doesn’t that mean it doesn’t create serious risk for anyone?

      Perhaps the problem is we have been taking global warmers seriously when they weren’t serious.

      • If it doesn’t create serious risk for insurers, doesn’t that mean it doesn’t create serious risk for anyone?

        Surely you can’t be serious?

      • I am serious. And don’t call me Surely.

        You do know what an insurer is don’t you? I ask for rhetoric reasons because many on the global warming side don’t have a clue how things work in the real world – otherwise they could model them successfully.

        An insurer is paid money when times are good with an agreement that he will pay you when times are bad. He does risk calculations to determine the percentage of good vs bad so he knows how much to charge you.

        If times are going to get bad in the future this would present a risk to insurers. Buffett says it isn’t serious. This is usually interpreted as meaning low to moderate risk, but it could also mean the risk is large and humorous.

        http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt

        So there may be some risk, but there is always some risk. There is some risk we may enter an ice age. After all the North Atlantic has dropped almost 1°C from top to bottom. The bottom of the ocean is moving next to Argentina.

        Until someone professional starts a CAGW vs Ice Age betting pool it is difficult to know which is the worst risk.

      • You do know what an insurer is don’t you?

        Yes. I worked for many years in the insurance and banking industry. Mostly in IT, much of it on decision support systems for underwriting and risk management.

        I ask for rhetoric [sic] reasons because many on the global warming side don’t have a clue how things work in the real world – […]

        Neither do you. (See below.)

        An insurer is paid money when times are good with an agreement that he will pay you when times are bad. He does risk calculations to determine the percentage of good vs bad so he knows how much to charge you.

        This simplistic bombast demonstrates your own ign0rance of the risk management business.

        An insurer accepts your money to assume a specific risk. If an aspect of the risk isn’t assumed, it remains your risk. For instance, many homeowners policies in my part of the world include a specific exclusion for earthquake damage, unless you pay extra for an earthquake endorsement.

        A change to the risk of earthquake in the area would not be a serious risk to insurance companies, because they would just raise their premiums to cover the increased risk. For the majority of homeowners who don’t bother with the endorsement, it’s no risk at all to the insurance companies, but a significant risk to the homeowners.

        See the difference?

        If times are going to get bad in the future this would present a risk to insurers. Buffett says it isn’t serious.

        Correct. Because in his opinion they would just raise their rates to cover the increased risk. I don’t know whether he’s right or wrong, but my point is that even if there’s no risk to the insurance company, there could be risks to insurance customers. Of increased damage, or higher rates.

        His point is that insurance companies don’t (mostly) guarantee their rates more than a year or two in advance, so increased risk from climate change doesn’t impact the companies. That doesn’t say anything about the customers.

      • We’ll have to put the fun on hold, until I look at a transcript of his remarks.

        My point was large scale catastrophes are bad for insurers and the lack of large scale catastrophes for insurers means a lack of large scale catastrophes for their customers.

        Higher rates for customers? Really? What is the evidence the cost of insurance will be even a tiny fraction of the cost of global warmer climate policy?

        Well, we’ll look at the actual remarks,

      • PA – does government action on “climate change” pose a threat to anyone? I say it does.

  8. So who poses the danger? A movie that offers an unpopular point of view, or a so called scientist who thinks such a movie is a danger, or politicians such as Robert F. (treason) Kennedy Jr. and Sen RICO Whitehouse.

    I plan on seeing the movie, but only after I dig out my Groucho Marx mask (dark sunglasses version) to ensure no one recognizes me. I don’t want to be on any “hit list” nor do I want my neighbors to have a middle of the night visit from the FBI asking about my movie viewing habits. I may have to hire security for my grandchildren so they are not in any danger from the rabid believers and other low brows.

    What a pathetic situation that so called leaders feel in danger from a low budget movie or any dissenting opinions about what the climate might be in 2100.

  9. Judith,

    Here’s some information about Robert Giegengack. BA< Geology, Yale; MA, Geology, Univ of Colorado, PhD, Yale (R.F. FLint's last PhD student). Taught at University of Pennsylvania.

    I knew Bob when he was an undergrad at Yale when he was enrolled in a course I TA'd on Geological Field Methods. We overlapped as colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania in 1988-89, but I left later in 1989 to go to UIUC. He's a fine geologist with a lot of experience in paleoclimates of the Pleistocene in a variety of settings.

    George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

    • He is one of the main scientists in the film, with a lot of air time. he came across extremely well.

      • Steven Mosher

        I like the clip where he says he doesn’t know if co2 warms the planet.

      • davideisenstadt

        Okay Mosh
        you with your BA in english feel qualified to judge a guy with a PhD in geology.
        okay…we inderstand.

      • I like the clip where he says he doesn’t know if co2 warms the planet.

        Nobody knows. A bunch of ign0rant pseudo-scientists think they know.

      • “if co2 warms the planet”

        All you need to do is look at a climate graph. The line squiggles up and down. Down is “cooling”… in the presence of c02.

        So, if you believe the squiggly lines, the answer is clearly no.

        Andrew

      • Steven Mosher

        Okay Mosh
        you with your BA in english feel qualified to judge a guy with a PhD in geology.
        okay…we inderstand.
        #################

        Last I looked a Phd in geology doesnt qualify you to comment on
        radiative transfer. I dont rely on someones degree or work
        experience to judge a science claim.
        If I did rely on degrees I would say
        1. Judith’s trumps him
        2. Arrhenius trumps him
        3. Those of us who have worked with radiative transfer as part
        of our paid employment trump him.

        But in the end, degrees and work experience don’t change physical
        laws.

        I think he came off well when he denied knowing whether c02 warms the planet or not. he was an example of something…

        But what about you?

        Do you think the best science shows that c02 will warm the planet?
        or do you think the best science shows it will cool the planet?

        Its not that hard.

        Even Anthony watts and Monckton get it..

      • Steven Mosher said “Do you think the best science shows that c02 will warm the planet?
        or do you think the best science shows it will cool the planet?”

        I think the best science shows that CO2 causes the planet to cool less than if the level was lower. An insulator doesn’t warm – but causes the object insulated to retain more heat by cooling slower (less energy escapes). It doesn’t actually raise the temperature of the object insulated (it doesn’t add energy).

        What is funny is that you and Mike Flynn are trying to say the same thing – but just using different words. You guys are closer on the issues than you think (in my opinion).

        Try mixing it up and saying it in a more precise way every couple of posts – just to see what happens.

      • Steven Mosher

        Too funny ak..He does say he knows a warmer world will result in co2.
        So don’t try equivocation on the word knowledge.

      • This morning had a cup of coffee that may or may not have been made less cool by my built-in Miele coffee machine.

      • David Springer

        @Arret

        CO2 works in conjuction with solar energy to warm the surface. The temperature gets higher with CO2 than it would be without it.

        Write that down and stop parroting that imbecile Mike Flynn.

      • Richard Arrett wrote:
        “An insulator doesn’t warm – but causes the object insulated to retain more heat by cooling slower (less energy escapes). It doesn’t actually raise the temperature of the object insulated (it doesn’t add energy).”

        Hilarious. Bravo.

      • Richard Arrett,

        You wrote –

        “What is funny is that you and Mike Flynn are trying to say the same thing – but just using different words. You guys are closer on the issues than you think (in my opinion).”

        I think you are generally right. The difference is (I am fairly sure) that Steven Mosher shares a view that I find amongst CO2 Warmists relating to insulators.

        This view is usually expresed as an analogy. For example, it might be stated that blankets keep you warmer. Or, you can use less energy to maintain the temperature in your house in a cold climate by using more insulation.

        If I point out that wrapping a recently deceased corpse in blankets does not stop it cooling, or that the heavily insulated house without a heat source will become as cold as the snow which buries it, inside and out, a torrent of abuse usually results.

        Observation and measurement support the hypothesis that the atmosphere has mild insulating qualities. Raymond Pierrehumbert’s book assesses the insulating properties of the atmosphere to be equivalent to one seventh of an inch of polystyrene (type and structure unspecified).

        CO2 Warmists ignore the fact that insulators impede energy flow in both directions, and also absorb and emit radiation themselves. Hence, with respect to the surface, generally the surface heats up more slowly during the day, and cools down more slowly during the night. I am purposely ignoring the role of clouds for the purposes of this discussion, obviously.

        It would follow from this, that both the coldest and hottest locations on Earth would be found where the atmosphere contains the least amount of supposed greenhouse gases. This seems to be true. The hottest locations are found in tropical arid deserts, around 70 C (Lut Desert), and the coldest so far is on the Antarctic continent at around -93 C

        Both these locations exhibit very low levels of the most important “greenhouse gas”, H2O. Basic physics explains these extremes, and also explains the rapid temperature drop in arid tropical deserts after nightfall.

        I suspect that you know far more than I about the physics involved. With some trepidation, might I ask if my explanations makes reasonable sense to you?

        Cheers.

      • blueice2hotsea

        Richard Arrett –
        I think the best science shows that CO2 causes the planet to cool less than if the level was lower. An insulator doesn’t warm – but causes the object insulated to retain more heat by cooling slower (less energy escapes). It doesn’t actually raise the temperature of the object insulated (it doesn’t add energy).

        CO2 is not a thermal insulator. That’s just a sometimes useful analogy.

        CO2 absorbs and transforms IR photonic energy into molecular electronic energy. At lower elevations, within nanoseconds of photon absorption, the electronic energy is usually transformed into kinetic energy by collisional activity with cooler molecules.

        That is, CO2 directly raises the temperature of “the object” it “insulates”.

      • @Steven Mosher…

        Too funny ak..He does say he knows a warmer world will result in co2.
        So don’t try equivocation on the word knowledge.

        Well, he doesn’t. OTOH I don’t know what context you’ve pulled this bare statement out of. I would guess there are some cogent caveats, implicit if not explicit.

        But there’s no way science can know that higher temperatures will produce higher levels of CO2, any more than there’s any way science can know that higher levels of CO2 will produce higher temperatures.

        Not at our current level of science anyway. Too many feedbacks, some negative, some positive, many able to change sign depending on other factors.

        AFAIK the math isn’t there to do more than a very rough heuristic analysis of the general basin(s) of attraction, and a heuristic analysis with a sample of one is pretty uncertain.

      • Mike Flynn said “I suspect that you know far more than I about the physics involved. With some trepidation, might I ask if my explanations makes reasonable sense to you?”

        The physics I have came from college about 30 years ago. I am sure many posters here know more physics than I.

        I do understand that there are two ways to use the word “warm”.

        Some will say that when you put on an extra layer of clothing that it warms you.

        Others will say that less of your body heat will escape the layers of clothing, so you retain more of your body heat, and so you feel warmer.

        Still others might say that when you put on an extra layer of clothing that you are warmer than you would be without it (I refer to Steve Mosher here). But are you actually warmer? If I put a thermometer next to my skin and went out into the winter and measured my skin temperature and then put a coat on – would my skin temperature read higher on the thermometer? I don’t think so (but I admit I have not done this experiment). So I don’t think you are actually warmer than you would be without the coat – but merely feel warmer because you are losing body heat more slowly.

        No matter how you say it – putting on an extra layer of clothing doesn’t actually raise your body temperature to a higher point than it was before you placed the extra layer on – it merely provides additional insulation which slows your body heat from escaping from your clothes.

        I think some here are using the word “warm” in a sloppy fashion and imply that putting CO2 is actually adding energy to the Earth system – which is obviously incorrect.

        It is the interaction with radiation from the sun, which the CO2 inhibits (some anyway) from escaping from the Earth’s atmosphere – which in turn slows the rate of cooling.

        The energy which is already here simply escapes more slowly.

        The sun is warming the Earth and the extra CO2 causes the Earth to cool more slowly (retain energy). CO2 doesn’t create more energy in the Earth system – it just keeps some of that energy from escaping from the Earth system as quickly as before.

        So I agree with your statements and have often wondered why more posters cannot see your point of view – which I see as perfectly valid.

        But many choose to belittle and attack – rather than try to understand another person’s point of view.

        I enjoy your sense of humour and hope you keep up your good work of trying to correct the grammar and word usage of some of the posters here.

        I will wait and see if my thought experiments are horribly wrong – or if I have described the situation correctly. I am sure the other posters will quickly point out any errors I have made.

      • Richard Arrett, I think Mike Flynn is going to disagree with you here, because he thinks CO2 has no effect at all with every fiber of his being.

      • I don’t know if more CO2 warms the planet.

        If nothing else changes, according to many scientists on the different sides, doubling CO2 should warm the planet by a degree or two.

        The problem is, everything else changes.

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “Richard Arrett, I think Mike Flynn is going to disagree with you here, because he thinks CO2 has no effect at all with every fiber of his being.”

        Wrong again. Your predictive telepathy abilities need a touch up.

        Maybe you should read what I wrote, rather than attempt to read my mind.

        Cheers.

      • MF, maybe you can point to where you said CO2 has any noticeable effect on climate, because if you did it is missed among all the places where you have been refuting it.

      • blueice2hotses,

        You wrote –

        “That is, CO2 directly raises the temperature of “the object” it “insulates”.”

        Complete and utter Warmist nonsense. I’ll render an abject apology, and grovel in mortification, if you can point to an actual repeatable scientific experiment that shows this wondrous, yet strangely elusive, effect.

        Wishful thinking and faith won’t make the miracle of CO2 global warming come to pass.

        Cheers.

      • Does anyone here know where to find the primary reference, where the hypothesis that CO2 causes warming was tested…. that is, who did the actual scientific analysis and when, and what method did they use to reach that conclusion? Has the method been peer reviewed? And could anyone point to where NSF or EPA, or any other organization, issued a call for proposals to identify the best way to test the hypothesis (I can think of 3 ways so far), and then funded that research? Or did NSF, EPA, AAAS et al. just somehow forget about doing the basic science ( hypothesis testing) first, before reaching the conclusion? Thank you for reply.

      • MF, maybe you can point to where you said CO2 has any noticeable effect on climate, because if you did it is missed among all the places where you have been refuting it.

        He’s never refuted it. Tried to rebut it perhaps.

        https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/rebut-refute/

        Unless, as I suspect, he’s really a warmist false-flagger pretending to be a blathering nincompoop. In which case he didn’t even try, just went through the motions.

      • I think both Mosher and Flynn need a hiatus.

      • blueice2hotsea

        MF – I’ll render an abject apology, and grovel in mortification, if you can point to an actual repeatable scientific experiment that shows this wondrous, yet strangely elusive, effect

        That’s easy. Preheat your oven to 400°F, then place a large potato into it. When the potato has reached approximately 300°F, take it out of the oven, put it down your pants, sit down and ask yourself this question,

        Am I being heated by the potato or the oven? Repeat experiment several times before reporting results.

      • blueice2hotsea

        Richard Arrett – No matter how you say it – putting on an extra layer of clothing doesn’t actually raise your body temperature to a higher point than it was before you placed the extra layer on-

        The Mayo Clinic treats hypothermia (low body temperature) by covering the person with blankets and “insulating the person’s body”. Yes, they have found that putting on an extra layer can actually raise a person’s body temperature.

        Your mistake was to use another bad analogy to get a wrong answer.

      • blueice2hotsea

        bi2hs CO2 is not a thermal insulator.

        Put less boldly, low elevation atmospheric CO2 is not a net insulator of convective thermal energy transfer.

      • blueice2hotsea:

        Your right – I did use a bad analogy. A living person is producing body heat, which if insulated will allow the body temperature to rise back to normal.

        Instead of a person, which is producing its own intrinsic body heat try taking a car in a garage, at say 33F. And lets do this experiment at night so the sun doesn’t shin on the car (somehow) and add energy.

        Let the car cool to the temperature of the garage (33F).

        Cover the car with a blanket – wait one hour and then take its temperature.
        I believe the car will still be at 33F.

        Now instead of a blanket, surround the car with CO2 (which is at 33F) and wait one hour. Take the temperature of the car. I believe the car will still be at 33F.

        Try that analogy instead and tell me if you agree that neither the blanket or the CO2 warm the car (in the garage at 33F at night).

      • blueice2hotsea

        Richard Arrett –

        You are correct in the limited sense that a blanket at the same temperature as the car will not increase the car’s temperature.

        However, you are once again incorrectly extending an analogy to the Sun-Earth-Atmosphere-CO2 system to force a wrong conclusion.

        You at least need:
        1. a continuous energy source
        2. a passive object
        3. an ‘insulator’

        Here’s real world example:

        My Dad bought a home in the frozen North that happened to be uninsulated. The first winter, during the coldest months, the furnace ran CONTINUOUSLY, yet the temperature inside the house sometimes did not reach 60‎°F. Next summer, he INSULATED. Next winter during coldest night, a TEST with continuous heating -> Interior temps exceeded 80‎°F.

        Which conclusion is more reasonable:
        1. The house was warmer because of insulation.
        2. Insulation made no difference whatsoever.

      • blueice2hotsea

        A caution about extending the house analogy to the planet:

        House insulation impedes convection. CO2 increases convection.

      • blueice2hotsea:

        You asked:

        Which conclusion is more reasonable:
        1. The house was warmer because of insulation.
        2. Insulation made no difference whatsoever.

        I would say neither.

        I would say your furnace warmed the home.

        I would say extra insulation allowed your furnace to warm your home using less energy – because the home lost energy to the outside less quickly.

        Of course the insulation makes a difference – but in the heat lost by the home – not in the furnace heating the home (other than less fuel being used to reach the set point).

        But as I said before – it is just a minor disagreement over the meaning of the word “warm”.

        Insulation doesn’t warm.

        The sun warms.

        The furnace warms.

      • blueice2hotsea:

        What do you heat (or warm) your home with?

        A furnace?

        Or insulation?

        What do you cool your home with?

        An air conditioner?

        Or insulation?

        Most people use the word “warm” (or heat) in connection with whatever is actually producing the heat – like the furnace or sun.

        I really don’t think it is that crazy to point out that it would be more accurate to say that CO2 is causing the Earth to lose energy slower than it would without the extra CO2 – rather than to say that CO2 is causing global warming. However, that is just my opinion (and perhaps Mike Flynn’s also).

      • blueice2hotsea

        RA
        Ok. I’ll substitute the adjective “warmer” for the verb “warm”.

        1) Insulating increases the minimum average temperature of the house,
        2) To get a warmer house, insulate it!

        Now substitute “planet” for “house”.

      • Richard Arrett,

        You wrote –

        “Most people use the word “warm” (or heat) in connection with whatever is actually producing the heat – like the furnace or sun.

        I really don’t think it is that crazy to point out that it would be more accurate to say that CO2 is causing the Earth to lose energy slower than it would without the extra CO2 – rather than to say that CO2 is causing global warming. However, that is just my opinion (and perhaps Mike Flynn’s also).”

        You are correct about my opinion, of course. Warmists are confused. They claim that CO2 actually raises the temperature of that which it surrounds. Hence the breathless pronouncements of “Hottest year EVAH!”. That is, an increase in temperature due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Complete nonsense, unless the Earth has suddenly and massively increased its internal heat production. The Sun’s output does not appear to have increased, and if it has, CO2 had no part to play.

        Warmists, at best, exhibit an excess of enthusiasm, which appears to blind them to reality.

        All part of the rich tapestry of life. I pity Warmists, but I have no sympathy for the majority of them.

        Cheers.

  10. Pingback: Climate Hustle: Moi on the Big Screen | Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

  11. Willis Eschenbach

    Dr. Judith, I loved this part of your article …

    Further negative comments from people that haven’t seen the movie are reported in an article posted at …

    To me, that sums up the opposition to the movie in a nutshell.

    w.

    • Nye is very popular among those who have shown great disdain for those coming from a religious or moral perspective and on that basis attack a movie they have not yet seen. That community has evidently changed. I remember when Ben Stein had his movie attacking evolution, his cry it’s critics wanted to see it and encouraged others to watch it as well if they could but avoid financially supporting it. Various tactics were suggested such as going to the theater, but buy a ticket for a different movie. It’s arguments were widely repeated and addressed. The thought was is that dead should be heard as they are preposterous or easily countered. The strategy for climate is let’s close our ears. What s different now?

    • Either the movie is true or it isn’t. Either the claims made in the movie are valid or they are not. Either the scenes are well written or they are not. Either the story is clearly presented or not.

      All the global warmers can do in response to a presentation of the facts is “pound the table”.

      The fact that they are “pounding the table” pretty much says it all.

      • He claims that the rate of sea level rise now is no greater than it was early in the 20th century, but this is a conclusion one could draw only through the most shameless cherry-picking.
        It’s also cherry picking to assume rates of SLR are high just because one has a pre-conceived outcome in mind:

        He claims that the human imprint on climate is only “comparable” to natural variability, whereas multiple lines of research confirm that the climate signature of human-caused greenhouse gas increases has already risen well above the background noise level.
        Error to define climate as global average temperature.
        Error to ignore coincident cooling from 1945-1975 with increasing GHG.

        Carbon dioxide is the main control knob for Earth’s climate
        Global average temperature != climate

        He states that the effects of carbon dioxide will last “several centuries,” whereas “several millennia” would be closer to the truth.??? IPCC doesn’t believe this, why does the author?
        Earlier IPCC listed CO2 lifetime from 5 to 200 years.
        Uptake rates have increased 500% since 1960 and are up to 2.5ppm per year. Clearly, even with an asymptotic ACO2 will not last long.

        The carbon dioxide we emit while dithering about what to do will cause essentially irreversible changes to our climate.
        Irreversible? The Eemian, the LGM, and HCO were all of much more significant variance than 2xCO2. Which one of these natural variations failed to reverse? None of them because irreversible is an appeal to emotion ( limited time offer ).

        I read this with incredulity before noting the author was Ray P.

        I saw him on an AGU piece go on about Lindzen deceiving himself.

        I expect Ray P knows a thing or two about the atmosphere, but it’s pretty evident that he’s also a master of self deception, which is fine unless one is trying to run that jive on others.

  12. Willis Eschenbach

    Joseph | May 1, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Another reason to be skeptical is that Morano is employed by and the movie is produced by CFACT a think tank with a conservative agenda. Which is to oppose any policies that reduce CO2 emissions.

    Glenn Stehle | May 1, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Well if you can’t attack the message, then the next best thing is to attack the messenger.

    Joseph | May 1, 2016 at 4:29 pm |

    When did pointing out his background become an attack?

    Joseph, it became an “ad hominem” attack when, in a discussion of the merit of the movie or the lack thereof, you want to talk about who made the movie. Who cares?

    Either the movie is true or it isn’t. Either the claims made in the movie are valid or they are not. Either the scenes are well written or they are not. Either the story is clearly presented or not.

    And none of that has anything to do with who made the movie, who they work for, or who funded the movie. Those are all just your attempt to smear the movie without dealing with the movie itself.

    w.

    • Willis, his qualifications for making a movie that passes judgement on climate science is suspect. I do think that is relevant, And I don’t think this movie will be balanced in any way which is what I would expect from a conservative think tank with an agenda.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        You still don’t get it. His qualifications are immaterial. Either you can falsify the claims made in the movie, or you can’t. Given your focus on meaningless matters, I have to assume that you can’t falsify anything, so you want to us to focus on your estimation of his abilities … BZZZZT! Ad hominem argument, next contestant please.

        As to whether the movie is “balanced” … really? You are the only person in the room expecting it to be “balanced in any way”. It is an ADVOCACY movie, Joseph, and yes, although it may come as a shock to you, it will favor one side.

        w.

      • It is an ADVOCACY movie, Joseph, and yes, although it may come as a shock to you, it will favor one side.

        Well I guess if one comes away thinking global warming is a hoax then Morano et all have done their job, right?

      • Well I guess if one comes away thinking global warming is a hoax then Morano et all have done their job, right?

        Joseph, you have not really listened. This movie will not say Global Warming is a Hoax. The Hoax is the part about man-made CO2 causing the warming.

        Science is never by consensus. Science is always by always questioning. I have been told I should not use always, but always is correct here.

      • “Such are promises
        All lies and jest
        Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
        And disregards the rest.” — Paul Simon

        Sometimes we should think outside the boxer.

      • Joseph said “Well I guess if one comes away thinking global warming is a hoax then Morano et all have done their job, right?”

        Even if that were accurate, what is your problem with that.

        It is the same thing Al Gore did with An Inconvenient truth. Trying to scare people that CO2 was going to destroy the world.

      • Joseph | May 1, 2016 at 6:16 pm |
        It is an ADVOCACY movie, Joseph, and yes, although it may come as a shock to you, it will favor one side.

        Well I guess if one comes away thinking global warming is a hoax then Morano et all have done their job, right?

        “I guess if one comes away thinking global warming is a hoax then Morano et all will have informed the public of the facts.”

        Fixed that for you.

      • “Willis, his qualifications for making a movie that passes judgement on climate science is suspect. I do think that is relevant, And I don’t think this movie will be balanced in any way which is what I would expect from a conservative think tank with an agenda.”

        Joseph,

        Climate change is smack dab in the middle of public policy, which means every Tom, Dick and Harry, every Sally, Sue, and Jane is going to pass judgement on the science. Their qualifications for passing this judgement is their inherent political power. This may come as a surprise, but the United States, and even Europe do not live under technocracies.

      • ” And I don’t think this movie will be balanced in any way which is what I would expect from a conservative think tank with an agenda.”

        You would expect “balance” from a progressive think tank with an agenda though? Is that what you mean? Really?

      • “Well I guess if one comes away thinking global warming is a hoax then Morano et all have done their job, right?”

        Joseph, you have not really listened. This movie will not say Global Warming is a Hoax.

        Kind of ironic that the one projecting hoax creation is the actual hoax creator.

        It’s much easier to make false claims about a film if you’ve never seen it.

      • Or is man-made “global warming” an overheated environmental con job being used to push for increased government regulations and a new “Green” energy agenda?

        http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/

        I don’t see much difference between a “con job” or “hoax.” It’s all about convincing people that scientists making things up about AGW to fool the public.

      • Joseph writes-
        “It’s all about convincing people that scientists making things up about AGW to fool the public.”

        Joseph- You are partially correct or mostly wrong depending on “spin”.

        AGW is a fact. What is not a fact is that AGW will result in net negative changes to the climate.

        Scientists have many different opinions regarding TCR, ECS and where the climate may or will change as a result. To claim otherwise is lying or at best spreading false propaganda.

      • I want to know who is making things up, what is being made up, and who knows it is made up. Scientists do have disagreements on the science in every field. But it seems almost exclusively in climate science where you see accusations of making things up for various reasons.

      • “I want to know who is making things up,”-

        anyone who claims to know or even be highly confident that more atmospheric CO2 will result net negative changes in the climate

      • What I hear from the IPCC and the various scientific organizations and the papers I have read is that there are risks of severe consequences from climate change. I don’t hear anyone say that anything about certainty. And as far the “net negative” changes, even Richard Tol’s work indicates that the economic consequences are a net negative at 2C.

      • I want to know who is making things up, what is being made up, and who knows it is made up.

        Well, people (many associated with the IPCC) made up something called “equilibrium climate sensitivity”. Certainly you can calculate a number based on past observations, but the assumption that such a number has any predictive power is unwarranted.

        But it seems almost exclusively in climate science where you see accusations of making things up for various reasons.

        Nope. “Consensus” archaeology has been accused of making up a dark age in the Eastern Mediterranean between the Late Bronze and the Early Iron Age.

        Having examined the evidence and arguments, I’d say the accusation is probably correct. But you don’t hear about things like that, because no critical policy decisions depend on it.

        Another similar issue exists in hominid palaeontology. There is a long-standing myth that the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees/bonobos, and gorillas looked much like a chimpanzee. Although this myth originates from before there was good evidence otherwise, there’s fairly good evidence that the common ancestor probably walked upright, had arms/leg ratios more like an australopithecus than a chimp, and was not really specialized for brachiation.

      • When I say “making it up” I was referring to the “con job” referenced by the movie’s promotional web site. It would include statements or findings that a scientist knew or believed to be untrue.

      • What I hear from the IPCC and the various scientific organizations and the papers I have read is that there are risks of severe consequences from climate change.
        Specifically, what risks and what change?

        Sea level is rising but at a relatively slow level.
        Greenland did not melt even with numerous millenia of summer insolation during the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

        What specifically are you concerned about?

        …even Richard Tol’s work indicates that the economic consequences are a net negative at 2C.

        The seasonal analogue is far from complete.

        But it is the only large comparison available.

        Is summer a net negative?

        Why or why not?

        What things happen that are different during summer that would not apply to a global warming world?

      • Specifically, what risks and what change?

        Sea level is rising but at a relatively slow level.

        From what I have read it is expected to accelerate. But to name some others I would include heat waves, flooding, intensifying droughts, effects on species on land and in water including ocean acidification. All risks that have support in the literature and were reported on by the IPCC. I expect you to cite papers that conclude that these effects won’t be a problem.

      • popeclimatetheory,

        You wrote –

        “Joseph, you have not really listened. This movie will not say Global Warming is a Hoax. The Hoax is the part about man-made CO2 causing the warming”

        Spot on. The silly Warmists have a CO2 fixation. Floods, droughts, continents rising and falling resulting in sea level changes – all apparently due to CO2. Four and a half billion years of the Earth cooling? CO2 levels dropped! Heat from a raging fire? Obviously coming from the increase in CO2 in the vicinity of the fire!

        What started off as speculation about the causes of Ice Ages by Arrhenius, has become fully fledged hysterical delusion.

        Ah well, this too will pass.

        Cheers.

      • Joseph | May 2, 2016 at 6:43 pm |
        When I say “making it up” I was referring to the “con job” referenced by the movie’s promotional web site.

        The GISS temperature only gets adjusted up during Democrat administrations.

        I don’t know what you call it when science changes depending on whether the President wants more warming.

        Can’t find any evidence of net change during the Bush administration but there may have been technical corrections (I’m open to better information).

        GISS tried to add 0.15 to the anomaly based on bad Russian data in August 2008 but backed it down again when it was pointed out what the issue was. This may have been an actual mistake.

      • Joseph summarizes-

        “What I hear from the IPCC and the various scientific organizations and the papers I have read is that there are risks of severe consequences from climate change.”

        Joseph- There are and always have been risks of severe consequences from climate change. Humans need to plan for changes in annual rainfall and other adverse weather. Some societies do this well by building and maintaining robust infrastructure- others don’t.

        There is no reliable scientific information that should lead to the conclusion that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 have or will result in a worse overall climate. The largest “risk” is for a significant acceleration (greater than 300%) in the rate of sea level rise. There is simply no reliable evidence that this feared outcome is or will occur.

      • There is no reliable scientific information that should lead to the conclusion that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 have or will result in a worse overall climate. The largest “risk” is for a significant acceleration (greater than 300%) in the rate of sea level rise. There is simply no reliable evidence that this feared outcome is or will occur.

        So should I take your word for it? What do you base that opinion on?

      • Joseph, you wrote: So should I take your word for it?

        You should never take anyone’s word for it. You should find the data to support your version. The bad news for you is that there is no real honest data that supports your version.

      • I hate acknowledging that Joseph exists, but everybody feeds the troll once and a while. Guess it’s human nature.

        It’s like Michael Moore. The movie points out that media and scientists have been presenting facts in a way that leads people to draw an illogical conclusion.

      • Alexander,

        You nailed it with “Joseph I don’t think you really listened”

        That’s our Joseph to a tee.

    • Or is man-made “global warming” an overheated environmental con job being used to push for increased government regulations and a new “Green” energy agenda?

      http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/

      The website claims to answer this question.in the movie. Sounds like the making of a conspiracy theory to promote the “hoax.” Maybe you buy into the crazy conspiracies.

      • Joseph, you did get it right this time!

      • Or is man-made “global warming” an overheated environmental con job being used to push for increased government regulations and a new “Green” energy agenda?

        That is exactly right.

      • Joseph
        I thought we were the conspiracy
        the bought off minions of the fossil-fuel industry
        insidiously sowing doubt
        and Judith’s mild mannered professor thing …
        just an act
        I mean, since the science is so obvious

    • Steven Mosher

      I think the point is simple willis.
      The proper approach to any movie or paper is skepticism.
      Regardless of who makes it.
      The real question is this.
      Is it worth my time?.
      Morano did it.. not worth my time.
      In fact no movie is worth my time.
      Cause movies ain’t science

      • “In fact no movie is worth my time.
        Cause movies ain’t science”

        What about wasting your time commenting on blogs?

        Andrew

      • Bad Andrew,

        But Mosher is a “scientist,” and commenting on blogs is doing important scientific work.

        And if you don’t believe it, just ask Mosher.

      • Steven Mosher

        Simple andrew.
        Movies are passive.
        Blogs active.
        It’s not worth my time to watch passively.

        Hilarious that you were the first to respond.

      • davideisenstadt

        Hey Mosh…care to link to some of your peer reviewed published papers?
        Too busy doing the hard work of science…. gracing blogs over the world with your snark, condescension and equivocation to publish?
        Whats happened to the quality of your comments is sad for all to consider.

      • Steven Mosher: Morano did it.. not worth my time.

        Reading Morano is worth more than reading you, He links to more new research than you do.

      • Did you watch [sic] An Inconvenient Truth?

      • Steven Mosher

        “Hey Mosh…care to link to some of your peer reviewed published papers?”

        http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Station-Quality.pdf

        http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

        Your turn.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Did you watch [sic] An Inconvenient Truth?”

        Nope. Last english language movie I watched was in 2009.

        Tom Fuller dragged me to watch a movie on Nov 19th 2009.

        Next silly question please?

        Maybe you will ask me why I find it more enjoyable to talk to people on the internet than to sit an watch a movie?

        That was some great irony by Bad Andrew and Glenn

        Maybe you’ll ask for my publications… That was also a Killer response

        Lets put it this way.

        Do you expect to hear a Better argument against AGW from Morano or from your own lips?

        Think long and hard before you answer that trick question

      • Steven Mosher

        Steven Mosher: Morano did it.. not worth my time.

        Reading Morano is worth more than reading you, He links to more new research than you do.

        #################

        Ah.. if my goal was being your own personal librarian I’d be offended.

        But lets check today

        http://www.climatedepot.com/

        I see a link to Goddard’s latest research… waa
        A link to notrickszone.

        here is a clue.. IF you want to read new research, then GIYF.
        Set up Alerts
        Read your feed

        Understand that If you read something on Morano it is often fed to him Via folks ( friends of mine) who have Alerts set up to feed them.
        So you are basically downstream of a google alert feed.
        Just write your own alert.

        Not that hard.

      • Do you expect to hear a Better argument against AGW from Morano or from your own lips?
        Think long and hard before you answer that trick question

        I think you’ve tricked us both.

      • “Cause movies ain’t science”

        Neither is “climate science” by those who refuse to follow the Scientific Method. In other words, the entire leadership of the IPCC.

        Reference: Yamal, Hide-the-Decline, Upside-Down-Tijlander, Gleickgate, 28Gate, Glaicergate, Climategate, “Lonnie Thompson, serial non-archiver”, etc, etc. etc.

      • David Springer

        What movie did you see on 11/19/09?

        Just curious.

    • “AGW is a fact.”

      is a claim.

      AGW is not a fact. It requires artificial images to represent the concept.

      Because it doesn’t exist anywhere.

      Andrew

      • Andrew- The basic physics are a fact. The impact on the actual system is not a fact.

      • “It requires artificial images to represent the concept.”

        I take that back. No one even does that. Because they don’t know what the squiggles are supposed to look like.

        Andrew

      • David Springer

        Starkey is right. In fact the physical effect, absent feedbacks, can be calculated as closely as any radiative transfer. It’s complicated by warming/cooling cycles due to the planet’s rotation. The radiation the earth receives doesn’t determine its average temperature, per se, it determines its average thermal emission. The more the temperature varies the lower the average temperature. That’s because thermal radiation follows the fourth power of temperature. In other words a small increase in temperature results in a large increase in thermal emission. So while that small temperature increase raises the average temperature just a smidgen it raises the thermal emission by many smidgens.

        The so-called greenhouse effect of 33C is largely NOT due to greenhouse gases it’s due to the ocean which hugely reduces the temperature difference between day and night and thus raises the average temperature but doesn’t raise the average emission one tiny bit. Average emission remains constant despite the higher average temperature.

      • David Springer

        If Mosher knows his ass from his elbow with regard to radiative transfer he knows what I wrote above is true. If he’s honest he admits it’s true. This is a test of both – knowledge and integrity.

      • The radiation the earth receives doesn’t determine its average temperature, per se, it determines its average thermal emission.

        Where? TOA or after subtracting the effects of cloud (and glacier/snowpack) mediated albedo?

      • David Springer

        Following this further we can deduce that land is much different than ocean in greenhouse efficacy. The only thing stopping land surface temperature from varying well over 100C between day and night is atmospheric greenhouse gases and the average temperature would be reduced by close to 33C. Average emission however doesn’t change. Energy in equals energy out in both cases. The paucity of water vapor in the desert and daily temperature swing (>30C) compared to a jungle (<10C) demonstrates this in the real world.

        And then there are clouds which really throw a monkey wrench into the equation. The average temperature in a jungle *would* be higher than a desert at the same latitude but you don't get a lot of water vapor without a lot of clouds to go with it. Clouds are an obvious negative feedback due to that observation. Enough to change a jungle from having a higher average temperature than a desert to a lower temperature. Water in all its phases is the great mover and shaker in shaping the earth's climate. CO2 is an afterthought. It's not a control knob.

      • David Springer

        @AK

        On any surface. Average temperature decreases as temperature change increases. Energy absorbed must equal energy emitted. Temperature will rise or fall until that condition is met.

        Clouds muck up the calculation because they change amount of energy received by surfaces shaded or not shaded by them.

        When the earth comes out of an ice age we see in the temperature proxy record that temperature shoots up like a rocket at the end of an ice age then hits a hard ceiling about 3C warmer than today’s. That’s because of clouds. As the land and ocean warm up it’s a runaway albedo effect where snow and sea ice turns to dark land and even darker water. Then the temperature rises up to where some serious surface evaporation starts, cloud cover rises, and temperature stops rising. All observations make perfect sense if you follow the water instead of the CO2.

  13. “I end up with split feelings about Morano.”

    What’s the split that troubles Randy so?

    “My heart is with him as a fellow communicator…”

    A feelings guy! But…

    “…he’s a danger to the efforts of the climate movement and did my best to warn about this in 2010 with a series of blog posts recommending nobody debate him.”

    So torn between a personal need to patronize and an activist’s need to fanaticize. Yep, Mullah Randy’s got what it takes to be a science communicator.

  14. I do already have our tickets for the movie.

    I did meet Marc Morano in Austin Texas, listened to him speak, watched movie trailers and talked to him briefly about Pope’s Climate Theory.

    I look forward to watching the movie, tomorrow night, after a Right Climate Stuff Meeting tomorrow, along with a friend who already saw the movie, with Marc Morano, at his invitation, when it showed in Washington, D.C.

    • We had a really good turnout at the Climate Hustle movie earlier tonight. We knew a lot of the people in the movie. We have met and talked to many of them at several Climate Conferences. We just had two days of Climate Study meetings that ended with the movie.

      Excellent Movie!

  15. “Are they trying to control the climate . . . or you?”

    The US has had a cap-and-trade program for a quarter of a century. Where is the “control?:

    • There was never a Cap and Trade Program for the whole US, that failed to pass in Congress. Some States did that junk. Al Gore took his profits and bailed out before it busted.

      • Wrong — there is a national cap-and-trade, and it still exists today.

        Reagan also had a cap-and-trade program.

      • Wrong — there is a national cap-and-trade, and it still exists today.

        Talk about a hustle. Scam. Cheat. Whatever.

      • Willis Eschenbach

        David Appell (@davidappell) | May 1, 2016 at 7:33 pm | Reply

        “Are they trying to control the climate . . . or you?”

        The US has had a cap-and-trade program for a quarter of a century. Where is the “control?:

        David, on my planet, you claiming something exists LOWERS the probability that it actually exists. If you want us to believe that there has been a Carbon Cap and Trade program for a quarter century, it will take more than you flapping your lips to convince me …

        Unless, of course, you are not talking about a carbon CaT program, but are referring to an Acid Rain or NOx program … which is hard to believe, but based on your record, wouldn’t be beneath you …

        w.

      • Willis Eschenbach wrote:
        “If you want us to believe that there has been a Carbon Cap and Trade program for a quarter century, it will take more than you flapping your lips to convince me …”

        Surprised (and disappointed) that you wouldn’t know about this, Willis:

        http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/may/23/debbie-wasserman-schultz/cap-and-trade-legislation-was-originally-republica/

      • David Springer

        Appell – please supply a link to the US National carbon trading exchange.

        ROFL

        As it happens there are state exchanges none of which have enough volume to be more than a flea on elephant’s ass. The Chicago Global carbon exchange died in 2007. You remain a testament to how an imbecile can get a doctorate in physics. Unless of course you weren’t an imbecile 40 years ago and turned into one via oxygen starvation to the brain or something. Judging by your weight heart attack or stroke might be the culprit.

      • David Springer

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-21/california-carbon-allowances-sell-at-a-dollar-below-forecasts

        The busiest carbon exchange in the US sold 9.5 million permits @ $11.50 each for 2016 emissions. Each permit is for one ton of carbon. California’s total annual carbon emission is 364 million tons. So the permits covers less than 3% of emissions.

        Carbon trading even in the most climate-change aggressive US state isn’t even a footnote. A 3x increase 10% of emissions under permit would be a footnote but still not a significant factor.

    • In what ways has your live been controlled by these Republican-initiated CnT programs?

      • Which of them was trying to control CO2 emissions? Can you spell “false equivalence”?

      • Can you give me even a single example of how the GOP-initiated CnT programs have “controlled” your life?

      • Can you give me a single example of one of “these Republican-initiated CnT programs” had anything to do with controlling emissions of CO2?

        Like I said, Can you spell “false equivalence”?

      • AK. I take it, then, that since you aren’t even aware of these CnT programs, you have never discerned any impact from them on your personal freedom.

        Just as I thought.

      • @David Appell (@davidappell)…

        AK. I take it, then, that since you aren’t even aware of these CnT programs, you have never discerned any impact from them on your personal freedom.

        I’m not aware of them because they don’t exist.

        I am aware of cap-and-trade programs for things like sulfur oxides, etc. However, as I keep telling you, making any statements about CO2 limits based on cap-and-trade for such minor pollutants is a false equivalence.

        As usual, you demonstrate your thorough intellectual dishonesty in you argument. Unless you’re a total m0r0n, you’ve been well aware of what I was referring to above.

        OTOH…

    • Steven Mosher

      I love the false bifurcation

    • The US has had a cap-and-trade program for a quarter of a century.

      The Clean Air Act implemented a Cap’n’Trade for SO2.

      Fortunately, the solution ( improved scrubbers ) was relatively inexpensive.

      It’s worth noting, however, that China did not even implement this relatively inexpensive measure, burning coal in a very dirty manner.

      So, even available technology was not a solution.

      Along the Chinese meme, as Mao said:
      ‘Morality is a luxury of the rich.’
      So too: ‘The Environment is a luxury of the rich.’

      This points out a contrary reality: Economic development does more to improve the environment than the economic restraint which enviro groups misguidedly argue for.

      Further realities, Much of the developed world already has:
      1.) falling fertility rates and even falling populations
      2.) falling fuel use, falling CO2 emissions, and cleaner environements
      3.) CO2, pollution, and population are issues for the undeveloped world
      4.) Economic development improves efficiency, reduces pollution, reduces fertility rates and eventually leads to lower footprint and improved environment.

      • Turbulent Eddie wrote:
        “Fortunately, the solution ( improved scrubbers ) was relatively inexpensive.”

        It has saved a HUGE amount of money:

        “How the Clean Air Act Has Saved $22 Trillion in Health-Care Costs,” Alan H. Lockwood, The Atlantic 9/7/12.
        http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-clean-air-act-has-saved-22-trillion-in-health-care-costs/262071/

      • It has saved a HUGE amount of money:It has saved a HUGE amount of money

        Sounds a little speculative, but assume true: even less reason for China to blow them off. But they did.

      • David Springer

        By Appell’s logic I saved the US a trillion dollars by choosing to not cause any nuclear power plants near major cities to go Chernobyl.

        The 2nd amendment which allows gun ownership by private citizens has saved trillions of dollars by way of intimidating criminals and murderers who would otherwise prey upon an unarmed population.

        The US war in Vietnam saved the entire world from communist takeover.

        The war in Iraq prevented an Islamic caliphate from taking control of the US government.

        It’s really fun inventing alternative futures which can’t be tested then making claims of fact because they didn’t happen!

    • appell, “The US has had a cap-and-trade program for a quarter of a century. Where is the “control?:”

      In the constantly revised regulations that made the emissions credits worthless. Typical bait and switch, ironically, the trading scheme did reduce so2 faster that expected, but the benefits were unintended. You can unintended benefits and you can have unintended consequences. Pretty rare for these schemes to actually do what they are expected.

  16. You oughta’ be in pictures
    you’d shine like Jupiter and Mars…

  17. Independent of the excellemt qualities of the movie, I do not think it helps much in the climate wars. Perhaps a little. Not a lot. The soft attack points (military ideas) are now elsewhere as the battlefield moves on.

  18. U.N. Climate Scientist Michael Oppenheimer is, “Lucifer in the flesh” and, he’s not alone. Award-winning investigative journalist Marc Morano is an ‘insulted, ignored, ridiculed, ostracized,’ patriot of skeptical climate science and of the scientific method.

  19. The “rhythm method” is more reliable than the “scientific method” of global warmers.

  20. The movie is already out of date, as paper after paper is released falsifying the CO2 is dangerous meme.

  21. It appears to me that the Americans are more advanced of human species, the ‘instant result required’ people. Morano good or bad, the Climate Hustle film good or bad, I’d like to see it, if and when put on line.
    The other day I was reading biography of Mr. Bill Nye and was suitably impressed, then I came across this statment: “This year Greenland melted almost completely”

    Even Greenland conformed to the spirit of the ‘instant result required’.
    I hope he is in the movie.

    • Yes, Mutha’ Nature tried to melt Greenland for thousands of years during the HCO, and she couldn’t do it. This statement indicates a lack of knowledge.

  22. Here is the climate hustle dressed up in legalese for use against ExxonMobil.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/behind-the-alarmist-scene/

    • Yep.

      Now that Peak Oil seems like a distant mirage, the new hope is Peak Oil Demand.

      And the climatariat is already dancing on the grave of fossil fuels.

      But the celebration may be premature. Like everything else the climatariat does, nothing is based on the past or present, but on the glorious future.

      There exists no empirical evidence whatsoever that the demand for fossil fuels is on the wane.

  23. Any chance of it coming to Belgium? Or the UK?

  24. The expert genre wants to tell you what you should be cocerned about.

    Wm. Kerrigan, on the news,

    “Not long ago thrillers and murder mysteries were mostly about criminals with distinct motives. Now they feature the serial killer. Unlike the murderer who killed, fulfilled his purpose, and hoped to remain innocuous, the inexorable serial killer with his open-ended string of crimes hopes to become famous as a source of anxiety. News broadcasts, themselves great organizers of anxiety, regularly contain health segments in which the public is invited to become anxious about what it eats, what it buys, how it seeks pleasure. One set of experts steps forth to inculcate anxiety, another to teach us how to live with it. What do those in the know actually know? They always claim to know where our true concerns should lie.”

    • I don’t know who the producers of our play are but it begins to all make sense if you see our global drama a one big never-ending rehearsal.

  25. Pingback: Climate Hustle | Transterrestrial Musings

  26.  
    “Marc is a propagandist…”

    Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become “common knowledge,” like the following?

    Global temperatures are the hottest ever recorded. Melting ice caps are raising seas to dangerous levels. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have never been more frequent or destructive. Planet Earth is at a tipping point because of carbon dioxide emissions. Fracking is poisoning our air, water and climate. 97% of scientists agree. A clean renewable energy future is just around the corner.~Paul Driessen

    • We don’t have instrument data from the MWP so this “warmest evah” nonsense is someone’s pipe dream.

      Recorded temperature data only goes back to the trailing edge of the little ice age.

      If we weren’t setting records that would be incredibly odd.

      The fact that the US GCM models can’t predict anything close to real climate and the Russian GCMs can is really odd.

      The fact the temperature adjustments started when Obama took his hand off the Bible is really odd.

  27. RE: David Appell (@davidappell) | May 1, 2016 at 7:33 pm | Reply
    “Are they trying to control the climate . . . ”

    My understanding is that they are. ‘They’ have, in fact, said as much and campaigned on promises of doing just that.

    Apparently I’m not to be too concerned that the US government, among others, have proven they have no control over their own countries’ financial industries (although other free-market, democracies, among others, have proven that financial industries are controllable by governments) to the extent of near global financial collapse. And yet the US government, among others, insist they can in fact control the climate through government control.

    If I’m shown you can (at least) do the ‘doable’, I’d be more apt to believe you can do (at best) more . . .

    I’m with Missouri, show me.

    -barn

  28. If nothing else, we should get a pulse on how deep rooted the green movement is beyond many of the “paid for play” bused in Soros protestors we see out there at events. How many theaters will have protestors out of the 500 that will be showing the film?

  29. Looking forward to seeing the movie tonight, sounds like a lot of fun.

  30. Well, a few of us are fortunate enough to be receiving the movie in a little while. So if you are in Southern MN, you can come over and we could discuss, in a civil manner, all that is in it.
    Take a look at “Inconvenient Truth” and compare and contrast.

    I, for one, view all of this as a study in human nature and the fact that emotionally and intellectually ( objective reasoning) we have not advanced much beyond, well beyond anything. I am often saddened by how blissfully ignorant the U. S. is becoming. No opinion on much beyond our borders.

    • Ya – I saw AIT, so I’ll see this one also,.

      There wasn’t much science in AIT and a lot of appeal to emotion.
      But this one may well be the same, though Dr C said there were no cringe-worthy errors.

      I, for one, view all of this as a study in human nature and the fact that emotionally and intellectually ( objective reasoning) we have not advanced much beyond, well beyond anything.

      Should this be surprising? Not if behavior is largely an evolutionary process ( takes a lot of generations to change population genetics ). Most of our evolutionary analysis and decisions were necessarily short term ( bear in the bushes? or mate? ) We’re not evolved to be rational.

      A fun game for this one ( and going back to AIT ) would be to see how many fallacious arguments are used in each.

      • Of course, even comparing AIT and CH invokes:

        Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.

        Now I’ll disappear into my own self invoked irony.

      • PA things are changing in the Land of Sky Blue Waters.
        For example, the ‘Black Lives Matter’ which could have been a good
        thing had they simply engaged the establishment, in a polite MLK manner
        .
        In MN, the marchers shouted through the State Fair Grounds with thousands of people present ” PIGS in a blanket, fry em like bacon.”
        Another sad step backwards. Sven and Olly would not like how some things are going.

    • Pretty much everything in Minnesota is done in a civil manner.

      Scandawhovians are pretty civil and polite.

      You are partially wrong through. While the US is becoming ignorant it isn’t that blissful.

      Only the “New World Order” group who want to hand control of the US to the UN really care what happens outside our border, other than from an air defense standpoint.

  31. Dr. Curry might be interested in this one:
    Hurricanes counteracting global warming.
    The study was published online on April 20, 2016, in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Biogeosciences.

    This map shows the total increase of photosynthesis and carbon uptake by forests caused by all hurricanes in 2004. The dotted gray lines represent the paths of the individual storms. Credit: Lauren Lowman, Duke University

    http://phys.org/news/2016-05-hurricanes-key-carbon-uptake-forests.html

  32. Willis Eschenbach

    Steven Mosher | May 2, 2016 at 1:38 pm |

    “Do you think the best science shows that c02 will warm the planet?
    or do you think the best science shows it will cool the planet?”

    Thanks, Mosh. I think that your question is too poorly posed to be answered. It’s like saying “do you think the best science shows that phosphorus will increase our crop yield”? Well … it depends on the soil, doesn’t it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, the question is poorly specified.

    Similarly, you have not given us enough details to answer your question. As one simple example, are we talking a steady-state system, or a system far from equilibrium? Until those kinds of things are specified, your question is unanswerable.

    w.

    • David Springer

      The best science shows CO2 will warm the planet in times and places where it is too cold now.

      • The best science shows that nothing has been proven about warming from Man-Made CO2.

        There are time spans with correlations between CO2 and temperature and many more time spans with no correlations, most important, there has been no correlation between CO2 and temperature for the most recent two decades or most of the past two thousand years.

        If you missed that, watch the Climate Hustle movie, or look at actual real, honest, data.

  33. Just in case anybody was wondering about Steven Mosher’s involvement in science, he bolstered his claim to being a scientist by providing two links to published papers.

    The journal in which these appeared, “Journal of Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview”, is apparently a predatory journal, preying on the gullible and poorly informed.

    “India-based OMICS Publishing Group has just launched a new brand of scholarly journals called “SciTechnol.” This new OMICS brand lists 53 new journals, though none has any content yet.

    We learned of this new launch because the company is currently spamming tens of thousands of academics, hoping to recruit some of them for the new journals’ editorial boards.

    The new site, the URL of which is http://scitechnol.com, includes a barely-literate mission statement. In part, it reads,

    “Based on the scientific necessity and demand, SciTechnol leads international scientific journals. SciTechnol aids the viewers to have access to its journals. SciTechnol provides wide range of online journals containing the latest research from a broad spectrum of subject areas. For further information on SciTechnol online journals, visit SciTechnol Index.”

    This poorly-written mission statement is an indication of a shabby and unprofessional operation. The editorial board solicitation spam emails are also poorly-written.

    OMICS Publishing group has exploited many young researchers by inviting them to submit article manuscripts, leading them through the editing and review process, publishing the article and then invoicing the author.

    In most cases, the authors have no idea that an author fee applies until they receive the invoice. We documented this practice in an earlier post. Will OMICS continue this unethical practice with its new brand?

    We note that one other open-access publisher is also launching new brands. Perhaps OMICS is copying the strategy of Hindawi, which has recently launched ISRN and Datasets.org.”

    Further, from Wikipedia –

    “Academics and the United States government have questioned the validity of peer review by OMICS journals, the appropriateness of author fees and marketing, . . . As a result, the U.S. National Institutes of Health does not accept OMICS publications for listing in PubMed Central and sent a cease-and-desist letter to OMICS in 2013, demanding that OMICS discontinue false claims of affiliation with U.S. government entities or employees.”

    I believe Steven Mosher and his co authors were duped.

    I have read the first paper, and it seems to be an opinion piece of little scientific value. The central theme seems to be “Our guesses are better than your guesses, so there!”

    This is an example of Warmist science at its finest. I am assuming Professor Curry was an unwitting player in this charade. If not, it may serve as a heads-up as to the possibility of falling prey to a predatory Hyderabad based publisher.

    Cheers.

  34. Willis–Re Steven Mosher’s question of will it warm.
    The question seems like that of a salesperson or a child, as in do you want
    to be safe or don’t you, or do you want me to be happy or don’t you. There are other possibilities besides the two given, as in NEITHER

  35. Willis Eschenbach

    David Appell (@davidappell) | May 2, 2016 at 7:22 pm |

    Willis Eschenbach wrote:

    “If you want us to believe that there has been a Carbon Cap and Trade program for a quarter century, it will take more than you flapping your lips to convince me …”

    Surprised (and disappointed) that you wouldn’t know about this, Willis:

    http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/may/23/debbie-wasserman-schultz/cap-and-trade-legislation-was-originally-republica/

    Since that citation says NOTHING about the US having a carbon cap and trade system for a quarter century, you’re still just flapping your lips …

    w.

    • David Springer

      Willis is correct. Appell made a mistake and refuses to admit it. That’s just exactly what we expect of Appell. All dumbass, no integrity.

  36. Brian G Valentine

    Just got back from the picture show – I really liked it. The small theater near us in Arlington, Virginia was full for the event.

    So, I think you had the longest of guest appearances in the production, Judith. That’s great. You’re my age and you look a lot younger than I look.

    Bill Nye appeared without color rinse in his hair; the first time I’ve seen that. He comes off as a ghoul in the show.

    He is one

  37. I just got back from the movie. About 200 people in the audience, mostly an older crowd. My daughter liked it (especially since her picture and that of my grand daughter was shown in the background of my office).

  38. Jim D,

    Sorry for the placement. Threading getting a bit onerous.

    You wrote –

    “MF, maybe you can point to where you said CO2 has any noticeable effect on climate, because if you did it is missed among all the places where you have been refuting it.”

    At the risk of being repetitive you’re talking nonsense. I cannot be held responsible for your inability to comprehend what I have written.

    CO2 has no warming effect. I believe I’ve been consistent. If you can quote me showing otherwise, I’ll consider it.

    Cheers.

    • I just asked you to find what you said you said, and you failed, probably because you never have said CO2 has any significant effect on climate.

    • Jim D,

      You wrote –

      “I just asked you to find what you said you said, and you failed, . . .”

      I really don’t care what you command, ask, or demand. Read what I have written, or not, as you wish.

      If you disagree with something I have said, it should be easy enough to cut and paste, and put your argument, I guess. Your choice.

      If you disagree with something I haven’t said, feel free to quote it if you can, and argue with yourself, Warmist style.

      In relation to what you think or say, my care factor remains precisely zero. You can read what I write, or not, as you choose. You can respond or not. The choice is yours, of course.

      Cheers.

      • I read what you wrote and concluded that you think CO2 has no significant effect. You disagreed rather vigorously. We can leave it at that if you want.

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        I read what you wrote and concluded that you think CO2 has no significant effect. You disagreed rather vigorously. We can leave it at that if you want.

        Your conclusion is incorrect. If the atmosphere, aquasphere, lithosphere, and all the rest bahave chaotically, then an arbitrarily small input change can create unforeseen outputs. Timing, locality, intensity and sign are completely unpredictable.

        I’m assuming that chaos is a fact. The weather, and hence climate, is unpredictable in any useful sense – by that I mean a naive persistence forecast is as much use as anything more complicated. A similar example is found in the skill (or lack thereof) of the best and brightest in financial forecasting. Most of yesterday’s “Masters of the Universe” are currently having to adjust a new reality. Chaos in action.

        So I have to say, I don’t know what the ultimate impacts of the actions of the components of the Earth are, in relation to weather. Having said that, CO2 has no demonstrated heating effect. Anybody making such a claim is just flying in the face of reality.

        Hope this helps to clarify my views. You don’t need to attempt to read my mind in future. If you want to know what I think, just ask. Might save a bit of angst.

        Cheers.

      • So when I said ” I think Mike Flynn is going to disagree with you here, because he thinks CO2 has no effect at all with every fiber of his being”, you didn’t need to disagree after all because I said it for you. Nuff said.

      • JCH,

        You wrote –

        “He’s a gimmick – 100%. Feynman would laugh his butt of at this clown.”

        Pretty standard Warmist fare – an information free attempted ad hominem attack, combined with a assertion that you can commune with the dead (telepathically, presumably). Do the dead answer back, or do you have to make up the replies?

        Try digging up a repeatable scientific experiment demonstrating the heating power of CO2. I realise Warmist don’t need science, but it impresses non Warmists on occasion.

        Cheers.

    • He’s a gimmick – 100%. Feynman would laugh his butt of at this clown.

  39. Pingback: En grönare värld - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

  40. I viewed the movie in Oklahoma City. I estimate there were about 150 in attendance. Enjoyed it very much. There was quite a lot of laughter in the theater when Algore and Prince Charles vocalized their failed predictions on pending doom and gloom of future

    As Brian G Valentine observed, you had the longest guest appearance. I was impressed with your comments. I’ve always enjoyed Marc Morano’s comments, but he really shined in this production. As for Bill Nye, the Pretend Science Guy, he really exposed his ignorance on the subject. Obviously he only has credibility among children and warmists who are mostly clueless to reality.

    Enjoyed the panel discussion. While I generally agree with Sarah Palin, I was rather unimpressed her comments. She didn’t seem to express herself very well most of the time.

    I give the movie 5 stars…

  41. I went and saw it in Saginaw, Michigan and wrote an Amazon review. There’s no DVD yet, but they have video trailer where you can post a review. There was only one showing and the ticket was a little pricey at $14, which made me pause a bit. I think the deciding factor was that it gave me an excuse to put off doing something that I should have been doing instead.

    There were 28 people who showed up, including me. They were all older, most with grey hair. About four of them could have been younger than 40. There was some giggling at the funny parts. The part that got the most laughs was the series of statements by Prince Charles. There was moderate applause at the end. A few people walked out before the end — all of them while Sarah Palin was speaking during the panal discussion. I didn’t think she was that bad in this movie, but I do think she has a bad image and it gave these people an excuse to leave early.

    I entitled my review, “I’m Glad Someone is Making a Movie Like This”:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AVKIH8MENU44A/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

  42. AK,

    Apologies. Once again, threading becoming onerous.

    You wrote –

    “MF, maybe you can point to where you said CO2 has any noticeable effect on climate, because if you did it is missed among all the places where you have been refuting it.

    He’s never refuted it. Tried to rebut it perhaps.

    https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/rebut-refute/

    Unless, as I suspect, he’s really a warmist false-flagger pretending to be a blathering nincompoop. In which case he didn’t even try, just went through the motions.”

    As I never said that CO2 (or H2O, or O3, or N2 or . . . ) doesn’t have any noticeable effect on climate one way or the other, I’m not sure how you infer that I did.

    Maybe I’m a blathering nincompoop, a Warmist false flagger, or even a fool or a fraud – your suspicions mean as much to me as a dollar’s worth of nothing. I hope you don’t mind.

    As to Warmism and CO2 controlled global warming, no refutation is necessary for a non existent theory. Any fool can claim anything they like, and climatologists often do.

    So go ahead, show a repeatable scientific experiment that demonstrates CO2 increases the temperature of anything. Computer models or simulations aren’t experiments. Pious faith isn’t a repeatable experiment. Do the best you can – it will amount to nothing, if Warmist performance to date is any guide.

    Cheers.

    • As I never said that CO2 (or H2O, or O3, or N2 or . . . ) doesn’t have any noticeable effect on climate one way or the other, I’m not sure how you infer that I did.

      I didn’t. I was addressing the misuse of the word “refute”.

      Maybe I’m a blathering nincompoop, a Warmist false flagger, or even a fool or a fraud – your suspicions mean as much to me as a dollar’s worth of nothing. I hope you don’t mind.

      I wasn’t even speaking to you. I don’t know whether you’re a warmist false-flagger or not, but your posts benefit the CAGW “side” of the “debate”, so I’m suspicious.

      Any fool can claim anything they like, and climatologists often do.

      Pot:kettle:black

      • AK,

        Thank you for not inferring from anything I said that I implied that neither CO2 nor any other atmospheric cannot affect the weather, and hence the climate.

        I understand that you weren’t speaking to me directly, but about me, and in the full knowledge I was more likely than not (IPCC terminology) to read it. I assume this was your intent. I may be wrong.

        You mention you are suspicious. Hmmm. Once again my care-o-meter is stubbornly lodged on zero. Suspect away! Strain your hardest! I hope it gives you a sense of peace and contentment.

        Only joking, of course. I wouldn’t want you to have an attack of apoplexy!

        Cheers.

  43. Judith, don;t ever apologize for participating.

  44. Andrew’s Climate Hustle Review:

    The theater was full. I bought my and my nephew’s tickets at $14.00 a piece. The seats were those reclining luxury chairs where you have room to stretch out your legs. I like that. 😉

    I’ll give the movie itself 3 out of 5 stars. There were a couple of dumb moments in it, but that was not unexpected. I would have made the movie differently, the problem there is so much climate related BS to sift through, it’s hard to know where to begin. It tried to do some humor that just missed. No biggie.

    The strength of the movie is that it simply catches prominent Warmers (scientists, politicians, enviros, tv anchors) saying really stupid stuff. There’s plenty of that to go around as we all know, and the movie did a good job highlighting some of it.

    The weakness of the movie (IMO) was that it didn’t get into the deeper scientific issues at all, but of course not many people would sit through stuff like that. That’s the climate nerd in me wanting someone to explore all the holes in climate science and expose them.

    I was surprised at how much Dr. Curry was in it. Anthony Watts only appeared for a few seconds. Richard Tol had a couple of nice bits, except for the hair.

    I would recommend the movie to anyone who is interested the Global Warming discussion, simply because it presents relevant information about what’s being/been presented about climate you don’t get from typical media.

    Andrew

  45. My wife and I saw the movie last night in Tysons Corner Va last night. I wasn’t expecting much of an audience since it was a work night and pouring rain. Surprisingly there was a rather large crowd. Lots of applause at the end. I think the most important part of the movie was the interview with Bill Nye the science guy. That interview really exposed the mentality of the debate now, scary stuff.

  46. Brian G Valentine

    I came away with the impression that the message of the film was, “there are a lot of factors that influence the Earthly climate, so why would anyone ascribe all influence to one variable.”

    We didn’t hear that AGW is nothing but junk physics, with a simple explanation why. I would have welcomed that

  47. Emotional unemployed W.Va. coal worker confronts Hillary Clinton over comment about putting coal ‘out of business’

    His name was Bo Copley, who described himself as an unemployed coal worker. Accompanied by his wife and a photograph of the couple’s children, he had a pointed question for Clinton: “How you could say you are going to put a lot of coal miners out of jobs and then come in here and tell us how you’re going to be our friend?” he asked, according to the Associated Press. Copley was variously described as “teared up,” “choked up” and “emotional” as he spoke.

    • Brian G Valentine

      Hillary should have told him how she really felt:

      “That’s just too bad, pal, but my greenie supporters are going to get richer and you’re going to go under. That’s just evolution in action. You might as well accept it and quit whimpering.”

  48. Saw “Climate Hustle” last night in the only theatre in RI showing it. There were no protesters at the theatre, and about 60-70 folks attended. No doubt a somewhat biased audience as several booed when Senator Sheldon “RICO” Whitehouse (D-RI) was briefly shown. I thought it was quite well done, using a mostly calm rational tone while showing the often strident and emotional presentations of the CAGW crowd. Our hostess has a fair amount of screen time and came across as the voice of bemused reason. I noticed the photo on Professor Curry’s desk too. The simplification of concerns about climate being reduced to “It’s The CO2, Stupid!” always struck me as unlikely for the wickedly complex system like climate, and I am disappointed in my fellow scientists especially for embracing a simplistic (and to be polite, incomplete) explanation. I don;t think Marc or any other speaking in the film said CO2 has no effect, but that it is just one of many, many factors. That is not a controversial message. The recently recorded discussion after the DC showing was a bit of a disappointment, as the questions presented by the host and Governor Palin’s answers were a lot choppier than you would expect from people that have been in front of the media for years. I am guessing Marc wanted to soft pedal the conspiracy theory aspects of some of the CAGW crowd. But as admitted by several as shown in the film, the redistributionist/population control aspects trying to control climate are a feature, not a bug, of their goals. Bonus per Professor Curry’s intro comments: There is radio host here in RI that has a weekly segment on “Reviews of movies we haven’t seen”.

  49. I wasn’t feeling well yesterday so I skipped my usual recreation and went to see it. I didn’t particularly like it.

    Quality, production, and style were pretty bad, especially the beginning. It over sells the “dubiousness” of the climate movement. It’s hokey.

    It does make some good points well (the importance of variability, that we influence weather and climate, but it’s just influence–not good or bad), but still isn’t very clear or concrete in what it’s trying to communicate.

    I’m very far from its target audience, which seems to be middle class and retired (people who are probably receiving a message “we must save our grandchildren from global warming,” but whose experience doesn’t jibe with message). With that in mind, the quality and style may actually be intentional and effective in communicating the key points of implications of failed validation, natural variability, and cultural failings of climate science community.

  50. Mr Springer, re your earlier comments about the Greenhouse effect. Would atmospheric pressure account for any of the higher than expected temps near the surface?

  51. blueice2hotsea

    My wife took me to the movie last night. There was a poignant moment when Judith Curry spoke on being kicked out of the tribe and her eyes seemed to get a little misty. And then so did mine.

    The movie would have benefited from a professional narrator like Stacy Keach, someone to provide an off-camera voice of God. But, not in the budget, I suppose.

  52. Judith: I attended “The Climate Hustle” yesterday and was revolted as usual by the politicization of science by both sides. AGW is not a hoax, nor a hustle, nor the greatest catastrophe facing mankind. That is how politicians speak. The scientific issue is climate sensitivity: How much warmer is it likely to get if we burn certain amounts of fossil fuel this century? The economic and environmental issue: How much damage is likely to occur from warming and how much does it cost to mitigate that damage? As a scientist, you might consider not volunteering to participate such affairs unless they chose to include your remarks on this subject.

    Professor Schneider has given you and your peers his blessing to do whatever you feel is needed to “make the world a better place”, as long as you strike the right balance between being honest and being effective. I prefer the standards Professor Feynman advocates in “Cargo Cult Science”:

    “I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.”

    http://www.nhn.ou.edu/~johnson/Education/Capstone/Ethics/1974-CargoCultScience-Feynman.pdf

    No matter how revolted I may be by the tactics of the alarmists, a movie that doesn’t acknowledge that at least some warming is due to anthropogenic GHGs isn’t something I personally would want to appear in.

    • franktoo: I think you are too critical. The movie, via the segments with testimonies of qualified scientists who have pulled away from the consensus camp – including Judith Curry and others clearly articulate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but upon close study of the science, came to question the consensus story line. The issues are not only climate sensitivity but also basic attribution (in the deterministic models) and the communication of uncertainty. I assume you are following the scientific debate so you must understand that these are the three critical issues with the consensus storyline. All were covered in the movie. I would like to have seen a lot of other things addressed in this movie, for one McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s unraveling of Mann’s “hockey stick” and recent work e.g., by Judith Curry and Nic Lewis on much lower estimates of climate sensitivity than acknowledged in the IPCC media playbook. And, although there was mention at one point of how the hiatus was magically made to disappear there could have been more said about how the NOAA has lately worked to revise historical temperature records trying to show the hiatus has magically disappeared ( e.g., Karl et,al. paper in Science mag. last fall). The movie was intended for the general public and served its purpose of educating those who are not PhDs on the serious issues in the consensus storyline. To go into every minute detail would be unwieldy and defeat the purpose entirely. As Stephen Moser correctly noted earlier the issue is now policy and the big challenge now is to try to educate the general masses on the issues. Of course many don’t want to be educated! The more the policies are cast in cement the harder this becomes. Some people are happy to accept what the liberal bureaucrats tell them. “Llimousine liberals” mainly want more central control and more redistribution of wealth. I told my granddaughter what the movie was about, and she said, “oh, she knew all about global warming.” Her 2nd grade teacher taught her all about it – people making carbon dioxide that is going to cause catatrosphic problems with ice melting and heat waves and people falling off of cliffs. She was shown a canned presentation in class, I think part of the Common Core curriculum. It is indoctrination a la Herr Doctor Goebbels. Be very scared about that.

    • Jim D,

      If anybody said the weather, and hence the climate, never changes, I’d probably disagree with them, myself.

      Did Sarah Palin really say that, or are you making stuff up?

      Cheers.

  53. blueice2hotsea,

    In relation to my request for an experiment the miraculous heating powers of CO2, you provided the following response –

    “That’s easy. Preheat your oven to 400°F, then place a large potato into it. When the potato has reached approximately 300°F, take it out of the oven, put it down your pants, sit down and ask yourself this question,

    Am I being heated by the potato or the oven? Repeat experiment several times before reporting results.”

    The results show that you lack the necessary powers of comprehension to understand my question.

    In what fashion do the miraculous heating powers of CO2 show themselves? Are you sure you understand that the presence of CO2 provides precisely no heating effect whatsoever?

    I am sorry, but your proposed experiment merely shows that you can warm things up, and cool things down. I can suggest the following experiment, as an addition to yours. Before popping the hot potato down your trousers, let it cool down to a comfortable heat. It might serve as a fairly inferior substitute for a hot water bottle. No CO2 involved.

    I assume you are pretending to be thick. I don’t know why, but you can enlighten me if you wish.

    Cheers.

    • I propose this experiment.

      Put the potato in the oven (which is at room temperature).

      Do not turn on the oven!

      Instead inject CO2 (at room temperature) into the oven and close the door (you may seal it if you like).

      Wait one hour.

      Measure the temperature of the potato.

      Did it warm?

      Why or why not.

      Here is another interesting experiment one could run.

      Put the potato into the oven, do not turn on the oven, do not inject CO2 – but instead turn on the oven light.

      Wait one hour and measure the temperature of the potato.

      I imagine it would be a bit warmer than room temperature (based on my my knowledge of how an easy bake oven works).

      Now, try it with the potato, the CO2 and the light and see if the CO2 caused the potato to reach a higher temperature after an hour than without the CO2.

      To those with more experience than I – will the potato be warmer with the oven light and the CO2 than without the CO2? if so, how much warmer will it be(than with just the light)?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

      Finally, what warmed the potato?

      I believe the correct answer is the light (under either version) – but we will see how people respond.

      • Hmmmmm…. Po-ta-toes…..

        OK, I do like your point.

        But do another experiment.

        Take three potatoes,
        bake them all ( to the same temperature, but make sure they’re mushy ).

        Now,
        put potato #1 on a plate ( convection & radiates to the environment )
        cover potato #2 in a steel pot ( no convection, but pot radiates )
        stuff potato #3 in a vacuum thermos ( no convection, restricted radiance )

        Wait 1 hour and check the temperatures of all three.

        Potato #3 may be the warmest because of reduced heat loss.

        Additional CO2, all else being the same, will act as the thermos.

      • TE:

        I agree.

        I just wish that people would stop saying that CO2 is warming the planet!

        Instead, additional CO2 is further insulating the planet – causing it to cool more slowly.

        Words matter – especially to a scientist.

        I am not saying that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not a problem – I am just asking that the problem be described accurately.

        I am not disagreeing that CO2 acts as an insulator – merely quibbling with the language people are using to describe the effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

        I also do not think we know how much of the warming we have experienced since 1880 is caused by human added CO2 and how much would have happened anyway (by natural means). But that is a different issue.

  54. Richard Arrett,

    I intend to refer to the magical heating powers of CO2 rather than the magical warming powers of CO2, in future. Hopefully, this will help Warmists appreciate that heating is a different process from insulating, or as a Warmist might say, keeping things warmer than they would otherwise be.

    I await with bated breath for the Warmist explanation of how the presence of CO2 heats the Earth, if the Sun’s output remains constant. To paraphrase Dire Straits – “Energy from nothin’, and your chicks for free.”

    Cheers.

    • Brian G Valentine

      i think the argument is, you can “trap” heat somehow without the use of insulation.

      Equally as well as with the use of a colander – and that is why it is known as “the Colander effect”

      • Brian G Valentine,

        I agree. The Sacred Colander (worn by Pastafarian Ministeronis) is full of holes, just like Warmist Cargo Cult Scientism.

        Cheers.

  55. Brian G Valentine

    I would like to know the consequences of AGW as a fraud. As far as I can see, the consequences are these:

    – There is no damage caused by driving a car, heating a building, using fossil energy electricity or anything else involving combustion of fossil fuel.

    – The end of a nearly trillion dollar industry that is unsustainable by the profits it generates. The money supporting it might be used to enhance the life of the disadvantaged.

    When some people are told this they react as if you bragged about being a neo-Nazi. People drive cars, heat their homes, take airplane rides, or for that matter reside in a man-made dwelling have used fossil fuel and think nothing of it.

    AGW mania is the worst instance of mob mentality that I am familiar with since the Reformation.

    • The problem is it focuses on reduction of production and increasing use of other, impractical and harmful methods. It’s sloppy and corrupt. We get things like emissions caps and carbon capture storage, which makes the sustainability problem worse.

      We should be focusing on developing better technology, expanding nuclear and clean coal, improving supply efficiency and consumption efficiency. CO2 is a horrible distraction from more important problems.

      We should not be scaling up technology to industrial levels which are not economical.

  56. I first found out about the movie on WUWT so posted my comments there this morning and am reposting here –
    Climate Hustle gets a C+ grade from me. I recommend it to any who are open-minded enough to consider new information and points of view. For those of us who closely follow climate science and the climate wars, it is a review of what we already know and mostly preaching to the choir. For others, whose knowledge is mostly the main stream media, the exposure to scientists and statisticians who reject or criticize the “consensus” is an eye-opener. So is much of the data presented.

    I personally find the time devoted to the card hustle and to the montages between episodes was excessive, and the time devoted to substance, such as explaining scientific method, that a model is an hypothesis, and that the “97%” of the Doran-Zimmerman consensus claim was based on these two questions-
    Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”
    Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

    which has no bearing on whether global warming and climate change is considered to be catastrophic, benign, or possibly beneficial.

    I think most of the short interviews were good, but too short, and especially the ones (or information about) political moderates or liberals who have changed their minds because of the facts. As a helpful tactic, I’d emphasize even more the retired scientists who can only challenge the group think after retirement. The intimidation and group think needs more exposure and explanation. I wish Judith Curry would have had more time to explain that or that Freeman Dyson and James Lovelock had been interviewed.

    I mentioned in a post above that although Sarah Palin surprised me by making relevant comments, she was a poor choice because of her deserved or undeserved reputation. Similarly, I think the comments about a left wing conspiracy to promote one world government with the global warming “trojan horse” is mostly mistaken. It is true of some of the environmentalists and some flaming liberals, but the consensus and fear of CAGW is surely much more “religion” than conspiracy. The conspiracy claim not only doesn’t ring true for any of my center left friends and acquaintances, but is offensive and a turn-off, so another tactical error by the film makers in my opinion.

    I thank Marc Morano and the many others who have tried to address the exaggerations, the disinformation, and especially the resulting group think and climate McCarthyism. Unfortunately, fewer than 20 were at the Greenville, SC, showing. I’m glad it was sold out in some other locations. I think the film or its successor needs revision, including more substance, more data, and an emphasis on the difficulties of scientific method and the resulting uncertainties. In other words, I think it should be more educational. As a center left sort of guy, but a teacher of a global warming/climate change science class, I’m very sensitive to both the left wing and the right wing group think narratives. Both, in my opinion, undermine the science of climate science and what, if any, mitigation and adaptation policies should be considered.

    WUWT reader takeaways from the film are less important than the target audience (I assume) of those who have had much less exposure to the differing points of view. I would be very interested in those reviews which I hope some here will post from other web sites, newspapers, etc.

  57. Brian G Valentine

    Judith Curry replaces Richard Feynman.

    Somebody had to do it, it might as well be Judith Curry as anyone.

  58. Today during lunch, the University of Chicago will have a live podcast on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan that is being contested before the Supreme Court:

    https://epic.uchicago.edu/news-events/videos/epic-live

  59. Many believe that the Sierra Club’s (with funding from M. Bloomberg) State-by-State War on Coal will have a much bigger impact than EPA’s Clean Power Plan: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002

    • Sierra Club my ass.

      Let’s drop all the BS and get serious here.

      Coal’s demise was for economic reasons. As the chart shows, it began when the bottom fell out of the price for natural gas. The plunge in the price of natural gas happened because fracking flooded the market for natural gas.

      Wind and solar don’t amount to a fly on an elephant’s ass, and what wind and solar there is would not exist if not for the subsidies that have been lavished on it.

      • Let’s drop all the BS and get serious here.

        Pot:kettle:black

        The plunge in the price of natural gas happened because fracking flooded the market for natural gas.

        Due partly to large investments in fracking, driven partly by anticipated market growth due to political difficulties with new coal-fired plants.

        Difficulties the “War on Coal” majorly contributed to.

        Wind and solar don’t amount to a fly on an elephant’s ass, […]

        Wind adds the most electric generation capacity in 2015, followed by natural gas and solar

        Wind, natural gas, and solar made up almost all new electric generation capacity in 2015, accounting for 41%, 30%, and 26% of total additions, respectively, according to preliminary data. The data also show a record amount of distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity was added on rooftops throughout the country in 2015. The trend of wind, natural gas, and solar additions making up most new capacity is likely to continue in 2016.

        The fraction of actual generation may be small yet, but with growth like this, and considering that both wind and utility-scale solar PV are past the point of needing subsidies, they certainly amount to more than “fly on an elephant’s ass”.

      • AK,

        Right.

        And I may buy a lottery ticket and win the Powerball too.

        But I’m not betting the family farm on it, nor the family silver.

      • AK said:

        …and considering that both wind and utility-scale solar PV are past the point of needing subsidies….

        Wishful thinking, anyone?

      • Wishful thinking, anyone?

        Nope. If there’s a War on Coal, it’s clear that wind turbines and solar panels are winning

        Wind turbines and solar panels accounted for more than two-thirds of all new electric generation capacity added to the nation’s grid in 2015, according to a recent analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy. The remaining third was largely new power plants fueled by natural gas, which has become cheap and plentiful as a result of hydraulic fracturing.

        […]

        And while Republican lawmakers in Washington have fought to protect coal-fired power plants, opposing President Barack Obama’s efforts to curtail climate-warming carbon emissions, data show their home states are often the ones benefiting most from the nation’s accelerating shift to renewable energy.

        Leading the way in new wind projects are GOP strongholds Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, home to some of the leading critics of climate science and renewable energy incentives in Congress. Republican-dominated North Carolina trails only California in new solar farms, thanks largely to pro-renewables polices enacted years ago under a Democratic legislature.

        The most dramatic change has been seen in the plummeting cost of emissions-free wind energy, which has declined by two-thirds in the last six years thanks to the availability of cheaper, more efficient turbines. An annual analysis by the investment firm Lazard determined that wind energy is now the lowest-cost energy source, even before federal green-energy tax incentives are factored in. [my bold]

        Of course, the subsidies contribute to more growth than otherwise, but wind, and now solar PV, are cost effective additions to CCGT, up to roughly equal capacity. Representing penetrations of perhaps 10-40%.

        “Wind energy is very low-cost and not subject to the fuel price risk that both natural gas and coal face,” said Michael Goggin, senior director of research at the American Wind Energy Association, an industry trade group. “Adding wind is cheaper than new gas or new coal. It is by far the lowest-cost resource.”

    • Don’t forget “big Gas” helped fund that war while it was getting under weigh.

  60. The big issue is that climate scientists are trying to prevent a catastrophe rather than waiting for the catastrophe to hit, at which point the diagnosis is beyond doubt but rather too late to be useful.